>> when they return, we do expect to hear from former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. he is the keynote speaker, and we'll get his perspective on the upcoming elections. later this afternoon, remarks from the head of the consumer products safety commission, nancy nord, about 2:40 eastern

all of that live here on c-span2. right now, though, your phone calls from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: here's "the wall street journal," we'll begin with that above the fold. candidates battle to lock up key states, it says here that backed by a ramp-up in tv ad purchases, mitt romney will spend much of the final two weeks of the campaign presenting himself as a bipartisan bridge builder, aides said, while president barack obama tries the persuade -- to persuade voters to this remine rival is painting a veneer over conservative policy positions. that's "the wall street journal". and then this morning "the washington post" says this: candidates adopt new roles for the final stretch. on a day of high energy rallies, president obama's campaign also announced grand last minute gesture to rebut criticism that obama has no agenda for a second term. his campaign's plans to mail to

3.5 million copies of what it calls the blueprint for america's future. >> host: that's from "the washington post" this morning. and then also in "the new york times" in the morning on the election 2012 section, this is what they have to say. mr. obama's schedule and the tenor of his campaign appearances made clear that his primary mission now was to energize his own supporters and get them to vote, preferably right away. in florida where he appeared in the morning and later in ohio, the constant refrain at his rallieses was vote, vote, vote. early voting begins in florida on saturday and is already underway in ohio. the terrain that mr. obama and mr. romney are covering illustrates a battleground within a battleground.

>> host: winning those states is the most efficient way for him to block mr. obama from returning to the white house or for mr. obama to lock down a path to 270 electoral votes. iowa and ohio are on our list of the nine battleground states. we kick off our deep dive of those states here on the "washington journal" this morning at 8:30 eastern time. we're starting with florida, and then on thursday we'll go to north nevada, and it continues leading up to election day, november 6th. we'll begin with louis, he's a late decider in marryville, tennessee -- maryville, tennessee, supporting mr. obama. louis, when did you decide and why? >> caller: can you hear me? >> host: we can, go ahead.

good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm for obama. romney has not really, as far as i'm concerned, told the truth, a lot of his stories. i'm a union coal miner, retired coal miner. >> host: okay. >> caller: and he has absolutely told people he supported coal, and our union later before all this started asked them if they've supported coal, and neither one of them said no. they didn't support coal. and so he's sitting there thieving about that, as far as i'm concerned, because we don't support him -- >> host: governor romney -- hold on, louis, governor romney said he would not support coal? >> caller: that's exactly right. >> host: and this is what your union representatives told you? >> caller: our union, yes. >> host: okay. >> caller: he was -- we've got some other issues going on, and we asked about that when i had gotten a phone call, i said who do we support? we ain't got no list yet, you

know? and they usually send a pamphlet or something, we support. they said neither one of 'em are supporting coal. but now you've decided to support president obama? >> caller: well, romney is sitting there also cutting the union schoolteachers down. he said he'd give the women support by cutting the union schoolteachers down, that's not giving women support. that's taking away their jobs. >> host: all right. >> caller: and i'm going to tell you something else, he has not said this, that he's always, we've always been told about when he was losing when he was running for republican president, he ain't brought it up. them mexicans across the border and educating them and can putting them to work, and that'll wind up putting them to work for about half price so the americans will be out of a job, that's the way i look at that. >> host: let me get your action to a piece by jackie kucinich, romney digging for a coal vote in belmont, ohio, representative paul ryan encouraged voters to

cast their ballot early for mitt romney in order to keep good-paying jobs in the coal industry safe. >> host: louis, are you with me still? >> caller: yeah, i'm still here. >> host: so this story is about how governor romney is telling those that support coal that they need to support him. >> caller: well, what he says out in public and what he does behind closed doors is two different things. >> host: okay. all right, so -- [inaudible] >> host: louis, when did you hear from your union representative? >> caller: well, it wasn't our union representative, it's one of the representatives up there,

and it's about two weeks ago. >> host: two weeks ago. >> caller: three weeks ago. >> host: all right. we'll go on to wendy in pampa know beach, florida. tell us when you decided to make up your mind and why. >> caller: okay. well, i've been going back and forth because obama said he would bring the troops out from afghanistan, and that appealed to me. but this morning about an hour ago i was putting on my makeup getting ready for work, and i heard on fox news mr. varney pose the question, would you trust president obama with your investmentsments and your money? no, i don't think so. [laughter] i wouldn't. and that was when i said, you know something? that's very important. >> host: that's -- >> caller: if you can't someone with your money and he's president, that's pretty sad. because he can't handle -- he's not good at -- all the money that he put into all these different projects has not really had any return on

investment. >> host: so that made -- you made up your mind then just this morning? >> caller: yes. yeah, i really did. i've been torn between the two. >> host: so what other issues made you feel torn between the two? >> caller: the one issue was the military, bringing the troops home. >> host: okay. and you -- >> caller: because -- >> host: and you trusted president obama on that more than governor romney? >> caller: yeah, yeah, i did. romney didn't say he's going to bring the troops home. president obama said he'll get the guys out of the afghanistan area because we're, it's really, to me, i don't like it. i think, you know, there's -- it's dangerous, and it's not really been very productive. i think it's a waste of time. they don't want us there, so what's the point, you know? we're just getting killed, so i don't want those guys up in the mountains being shot at. >> host: okay. >> caller: basically. >> host: to follow up on that caller's comments about the economy, this is "the wall street journal" this morning, front page, weak earnings spark

selloff. in just a few days american corporations have doused months of euphoria for stock investors. with tuesday's decline, some 500 billion has been wiped out from the valley of u.s. stocks in three days. the sudden slump marks a shift in sentiment for investors who just two weeks ago were debating how soon the dow would hit a record. now the question is, how much farther could it fall? >> host: so that's the story in many of the papers this morning following up on what that caller had to say on investments and the economy. also there's this story in "the washington post," economy and business section. he stopped the fall but hasn't turned the tide. the president's policies stem the economic collapse, economists say, but sluggish job growth remains a problem. inside the story, written by michael fletcher, the tepid pace of job creation perhaps the president's biggest political vulnerability as his re-election

campaign enters the final week, the unemployment rate was stuck above 8% for 43 consecutive months before falling to 7.8% in september, and nearly five million americans have been out of work for six months or more. pamela in kentucky, you decided to support gary johnson. how is that and when did you decide? >> caller: just now. i was watching the show on c-span -- >> host: yes, we covered the third party debate yesterday. >> caller: yes. i just saw the rest of it, and i just wish the rest of the nation could listen to them. i don't know who saw your shows, but they talked to the things which i believe in, first of all, which was legalizing marijuana because it's just like prohibition. all they're doing is causing all of the illegal mexicans coming in from the border and all the illegal sales. we've got more people in jail just on marijuana and drug

charges than we do for all other crimes combined. and i agree with gary johnson. he's from the libertarian -- >> host: right. >> caller: -- party. and he's just got so many great things to say. he said he would instead of -- excuse me, i'm half asleep. instead of balling out wall street, he would be bailing out the college students who are all in debt and can't get jobs, and they all have this tremendous pell grant to pay back. and he said they're the ones that need bailing out because they're our future. and we're on our third bailout of wall street. >> host: yeah, pamela, we'll show a little bit of what gary johnson and the other third party candidates had to say at that debate in case others were not watching that before we began the "washington journal" this morning. but i'm just wondering why you've been holding out from

supporting one of the two party candidates. >> caller: i was just waiting for one of them to say something that really inspired me and to get me excited, get me revved up, get me to march out in the streets and say this is the guy i want to run my country. >> host: and so gary johnson did that for you this morning? >> caller: yes. >> host: all right. >> caller: romney was who i was leaning towards, but once i listen to these people, i agree. the two parties have morphed together, and, you know, one or the other, it's not really going to make that much difference. >> host: okay. all right, pamela, i want to show others in case they missed it a little bit from that third party presidential debate. here is virgil good and gary johnson. >> balanced budget now, not ten years down the road like obama and romney are talking about. jobs in america for american citizens first. i am the only candidate that has advocated a near complete

moratorium on green card foreign worker admissions into this country until unemployment is under 5%. it makes no sense to bring in so many foreign workers when we need jobs in merck for u.s -- in america for u.s. citizens first. >> as governor of new mexico, i ran completely outside of the political system. i got elected governor, republican governor in a state that was two to one democrat and made a name for myself vetoing legislation. i may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. i vetoed 750 bills, i had thousands of line item vetoes. [applause] it made a difference when it came to billions of dollars worth of spending, it made a difference when it came to laws that would have told you or i what we could or couldn't do in the bedroom. >> host: on gary johnson, "the washington post" reports this morning that he will appear on the ballot in 48 states including some key battlegrounds with independent streaks where his blend of fiscal

conservativism and libertarian social views could make him a compelling alternative for conservative voters not wedded to voting for governor romney. and then in colorado, new hampshire and nevada in particular johnson could be a thorn in romney's side if the election is close, and johnson received just 2% in a recent suffolk university news seven survey of those likely to vote in new hampshire. and then in virginia jir jill goode could be -- virgil goode could be a problem for governor romney in that state as well. here is more from the third party presidential debate with the other candidate. [applause] >> there are 90 million voters who are not coming out to vote in this election, that's one out of every two voters, that's twice as many as the number who will come out for barack obama and twice as many as the number who will come out for mitt romney. those are voters who are saying, no, to politics as usual and saying, no, to the democratic

and republican parties. imagine if we got out word to those 90 million voters that they actually have a variety of choices and voices in this election. >> obama and romney have refused to discuss the corrupting influence of money flowing from wall street banks, from the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry or military contractors because they are the recipients of that corrupting money. and neither of these dominant party candidates will have called for federal protection for marriage equality, neither of them have called for an end to poverty, an end to the insane war on drugs or for the implementation of a wpa-like initiative that would hire millions of workers. >> host: those are your third party candidates. we're talking this morning with late deciders, how did you make up your mind and when. this is knee -- eric from

pensacola, florida. why do we spend any time on people who wait until the last minute, often casting mal or uninformed votes which appear to be based on emotion? here's a little historical take on voters who have made up their decision during the last weeks of the campaign. this goes from 1992 to 2004 presidential elections. in 1992 25% of those voting, according to exit polls, made up their final decision during the last week of the campaign. 30.7% in 1996, that has gone down in 2000, it was 18.4%, and then in 2004 about 11.3%. and here's how it breaks down by party during those years. in 1992 37% of those late deciders voted for democrat, 29% for the republican and 34% for the other candidate. 1996, 51% voted democrat, 33% for the republican and 16% for

another candidate. and in 2000, 2004, you can see the trend continues with most of those late deciders going for the democratic candidate and then about 41% in 2000 and 2004 voting republican, and then you can see the other, those that voted for the other candidates on the ballot as well. so there are late deciders, and we're talking to them only this morning. robert in davenport, iowa, you decided to support president obama. when and how? >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: what i actually did is i took a real scientific thing, i did like a t square, a balance sheet like, and i just went down the line on what i thought of the two candidates. i began to realize in that last debate it seems like i listened to romney all along, and he was acting completely different the last time. this time when he did the debate, it seemed like to me that he was trying to be like obama because he knows obama has

a better program. the other thing is like the 47% statement. that's really bad from the standpoint he's saying these people are entitled. they're not really entitled. the 1% are set up, and they're having record profits over and over again, and when they make these record profits and they don't raise the salaries, and the salaries of workers are stag in a minute, that's why the economies are in such bad shape. we have to have someone in there interested in all the people. they're entitled to make a living wage or enough money to take care of their families. that's what romney, i believe, should be saying. and when it comes to health care, he doesn't -- he said he would repeal it, now he's trying to change that again. but we need that health care. there's 40 million americans right now that do not health insurance. they need that health insurance, a lot of them are young and so forth, and they don't realize that they need it until they get sick. >> host: okay, all right.

>> caller: and when they do, it's too late. >> host: emily in mitch on the, virginia, you've -- richmond, virginia. >> caller: i don't know if you would call me a late decider. >> host: okay. when did you decide? >> caller: well, i started to lean romney when this whole issue in benghazi, when the assassination and murder -- >> host: okay. >> caller: -- of four americans took place. and to me, i was around when, you know, during watergate. and my feeling is if it walks like a cover-up, talks like a cover-up, it is a cover-up. and i am amazed that you had nothing so far on your program about the reuters report, um, late last night that, on all of these e-mails have been sent

back and forth. and, pardon me, they knew in the administration -- and it had to have gone up to the white house at some point very, very early on -- that this was not a rowdy crowd that got out of hand over a video that barely anybody saw. it was terrorism. >> host: okay. >> caller: and ever since it has been, i mean, you know, everybody in the administration's saying, no, no, no, it was the video, it was the video. two weeks later they're still not saying act of terrorism, and, you know, it is obvious that it was an act of terrorism. i just -- >> host: and let me ask you which is more of an important

issue, that it was an act of terrorism or that there was a possible cover-up? >> caller: well, both. >> host: okay. so -- >> caller: because if you're -- an act of terrorism, yes, is, you know, frightening. >> host: yeah. so that's why you've decided to vote for governor romney. >> caller: well, but the very fact that the president and the administration could go out and lie to the american people knowing what happened, um, i just feel outraged. and, you know, slowly became more outraged. >> host: emily, why do you think the watergate has stuck with you all these years in the cover-up? >> caller: well, because i grew up during watergate. >> host: yes. >> caller: and i saw nixon doing this, and i didn't care, you know, one way or another about nixon. what i cared about was lying.

>> host: okay. all right. let's hear from robert in laurel, maryland. decided to support gary johnson. when did you make that decision, robert? >> caller: good morning, greta. thank you, c-span. last night when i watched the third party debate, gary johnson's prohibition on drugs, me being an african-american considered a slave unlike that other individual running for president, he doesn't think of that research in that matter, has a brother in jail right now in federal prison because of the prohibition of drugs. and these guys would, you know, 60,000 black men been murdered since 9/11, half these brothers probably killed behind drugs and stuff like that. if we can legalize marijuana and stuff like that, half these black women without husbands right now would have one. >> host: okay, robert. your comments are echoed by lisa powell on her facebook page who

says gary johnson or jill stein, everybody should take a look at the third party debates, gary johnson president, jill stein vp is what lisa powell has posted on our facebook page. and then the previous caller brought up the reuters story, here it is: officials at the white house and state department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the u.s. diplomatic mission in benghazi, libya, on september 11th that an islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack. official e-mails show. so this is a story posted yesterday, it looks like, from reuters, if you're interested in that. white house told of militant claim two hours after libya attack according to official e-mails. we're talking to late deciders only this morning, how, when did you make up your mind, and the previous caller brought up the issue of drugs. and there's a story in the paper this morning talking about ballot initiatives in many

states looking at, um, marijuana, three different states, actually, and we'll try to find that story here for you. here we go, ballots going to pot, it says. here's the "usa today" this morning. voters in colorado, washington state and oregon face proposals to change state laws to permit possession and regulate the sale of marijuana. though the plant with psychoactive properties remains an illegal substance under federal law, approval in even one state would be a dramatic step that most likely would face legal challenges but could also bring pressure on the federal government to consider modifying the national prohibition that has been placed, in place since 1937. kevin in jacksonville, florida, you decided to support president obama? why is that? >> caller: um, it was after the last debate watching, um, governor romney's response to, um, the national security issue especially dealing with things like navy ships or, um, air force aircraft or even, um, army

troops. i don't think he understands that. i'm -- being a military member having worked in national security issues, it's a different, it's a different line of work where you look at capability, you don't look at the numbers. the numbers are not as important as the capability. >> host: kevin, you decided then to, you just decided after this last debate, what were you holding out for? >> caller: well, i really wanted to see if, um, governor romney, if he, if he had a different perspective on national security, if he had a different plan other than the broad brush, as i call it the broad-brush jedi mind trick or, you know, that you see like skywalker do -- luke skywalker do, and he didn't. he didn't have specifics.

all he had was the broad talking points and the wave of the hand, and that was not good enough for me. >> host: kevin can, what do you do for a living? >> caller: i'm a military officer. >> host: so you're still active? >> caller: yes. >> host: are you in the navy? >> caller: um, no. [laughter] >> host: okay. i sense some reluctance to tell us what you do. >> caller: yes. >> host: okay. all right, we'll leave it there then. kevin was one that watched the last debate, and here is "usa today" -- or, excuse me, this is the baltimore sun reporting that an estimated 59.2 million people tuned in to watch the final debate between president barack obama and gop challenger mitt romney on monday night despite strong competition from "monday night football" and game seven of major league baseball's national league championship series. about 65.6 million viewers watched the second debate on october 16th. we'll go next to maurice in fort benning, georgia, decided to support governor romney. when did you decide, and what

pushed you over the edge? maurice? >> caller: yes, hello? >> host: yeah, you're on the air. >> caller: okay. how you doing, ma'am? >> host: great. >> caller: for me the issue was, for me, originally why i was undecided was based upon a moral issue. i decided to go with mitt romney because of the fact i feel like mitt romney has a moral standard even though if from what i understand he claims to be a mormon. i'm a very devout christian. a lot of his views are consistent with my views and what i believe in in the holy bible, primarily a lot of people are focused on war, they're focused on money, they're focused on school education, but i feel the number one determining factor of why this nation is continuing to fall is because of a moral debase. and, you know, i learn in church and i read the bible, and i pray

daily for this country, and as the apostle paul had stated, the likely regard of the homosexual/lesbian abomination is the greatest evidence of human degeneracy resulting from immorality in the name of god. and any nation that justifies homosexuality or lesbianism as a civil right or an acceptable lifestyle is in its final stages of moral corruption. and i believe this at heart. if any nation that shuns the bible or moves away from the precepts that was the building blocks of this nation, is ultimately from the foundation going to corrupt. >> host: okay. so, maurice, why do you trust governor romney on this issue more than president obama? >> caller: well, for example, same-sex marriage. that was huge for me because originally i voted for obama in his first term.

you know? but that issue right there to try to change holy matrimony, which is the sanctity between a man and a woman, directly violates and transdepresses the law of god. >> host: okay. >> caller: and to me, it's extremely dangerous. because, ultimately, we're playing god ourselves. >> host: all right. so same-sex marriage for you. others have brought up the issue of national security. here's the front page of the washington post this morning by greg miller, u.s. set to keep kill list for years. over the past two years the obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next generation targeting list called the disposition matrix. >> host: against an accounting of the resources being martialed to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations.

that's a front page story in "the washington post", they're the only ones that have it this morning. and inside the washington times this morning, back to politics, labor unions set to unleash millions for ad buys in the coming days before this november 6th election. labor unions are sitting on at least 122 million in cash that can be spent on politics, more than corporate political action committees have on hand, and have already sent millions to democratic super pacs that are purchasing ad buys daily. with unions' traditional specialty being get out the vote rather than persuasion, that much of those funds stand to be -- that much of those funds stand to be spent. >> host: and then below that is a story about carl roast and his

super -- karl rove and his super pac, says he plans a new round of ads costing $8 million that will target democratic lawmakers in eight states featuring close senate races that american crossroads and its affiliates have been investing heavily in over recent weeks. >> host: and then speaking of negative ads and ad buying, some republicans are thinking about legislation that would counteract the supreme court's ruling, citizens united v. federal election, amid barrage of attack ads. some of them are considering tighter rules. it's in "the new york times" this morning citing dan lundgren, a republican in california, who has been a victim of some of these super pac ads, and he and others considering legislation to tighten up the rules. johnny in san diego, california, you're supporting gary johnson. why is that?

>> caller: well, why i'm a late decider, i was torn between governor johnson and governor romney. but i actually think he won the third party debate, that i was very happy you guys were focusing on. the whole media treats the presidential race like a football game, like it's two teams just trying to battle each other out. but the reality is i'm not going to let my cynicallism keep me out of voting, especially being in california, we're not a swing state out here. but, you know, i think -- i also, you know, i think the ross perot 15% rule is really unfair, which, of course, being a national debate you have to be poll anything that 15%. but how can you poll at 15% like ross perot did if you're not allowed to debate anyway? >> host: okay. >> caller: so i feel that, so that's why i'm not going to waste my vote on any of the two major party candidates. so that's why i am a late voter,

but -- >> host: and you've decided with gary johnson. okay. >> caller: yeah. >> host: camille in florida, decided to support president obama. when did you make that decision, camille? >> caller: well, i'm pretty much there. um, unfortunately -- i say unfortunately only because of the super pac issues. it's, i just hear people calling in. i've been listening to c-span for a while now. i watched the debates with the four candidates yesterday, the libertarian gary johnson, um, and all the rest of them. i'm not an advocate for, um -- i'm just not an advocate for, um, legalizing any type of drug because it's a moral issue. i'm not, um, for same-sex, i'm not for drugs, i'm not for abortion, but these are moral issues, and the gentleman that called and said he's a devout

christian, i see myself the same way. but i think it's a moral issue to bring up between you and the lord yourself. the government is run by business. it's a business. and, um, the government needs to protect and serve. and unfortunately, greed got in the way, and the pendulum is swinging, and, um, yeah, we are probably in for another collapse, and they're probably going to fix it somehow. but, um, it's gotten out of control, and i think the super pacs, i received a cd in the mail, you know, promoting that obama is -- i was wondering where people got this he's a communist. >> host: right. >> caller: and it's daunting to think that people can scare you, and it forces you to do the homework. you have to do the homework. and i feel sorry for anybody going in the poll and just pressing a button because it's unfair. >> host: camille, when did you

get, when did you get that dvd? >> caller: saturday. and you know what i did? i was going to throw it out, but i sent it back. i just wrote "return to sender." >> host: and which one was it, was it called "the hope and the change"? >> caller: no, it was something about my father. they changed the words in it. >> host: right. based on his book. >> caller: dreams not from my father, something like that. >> host: right. so you didn't open it up, you sent it back. did that help you make your decision to vote for president obama? >> caller: i feel he was given a big blow. you know, honestly, when he did his first debate, do you know what i saw? i saw a man who, basically, was deciding do i really want to go into office and do a job for people that maybe don't want me there, or it's like mitt romney, he is a flip-flopper. i have voted republican in the past. i am an independent now.

i am a registered independent for the last eight years. but growing up democratic, family was democratic. it depends on the origins that you were brought up in. but once you make up your mind to be an individual and you see your freedom in this world, i am free. i feel like i am a free person. i guide my own finances with my husband, i taught my children to do the same thing. and i think if people would just get themselves free. some people need the help. that's where the government does come in. >> host: camille, let me jump in at this point because you and others might be interested, "the new york times" has a piece this morning about the dvd that you and others in florida have received. strident anti-obama messages flood key states. this is from boynton beach, florida, written by jeremy peters of "the new york times." to open the mail or drive down the highway here is to watch conservatives test the boundaries of how far they can go to disqualify president obama. in one commercial that started running this month, a wealthy businessman and a hungarian

immigrant named thomas relents how socialism shackled his country, and a new anti-obama dvd claims the president is the love child of an illicit relationship between his mother and frank marshall davis, a communist party loyalist. the back story of the dvd offers the latest examples of how secretive forces outside the presidential campaigns can sweep into battleground states days before the election. and so let me show you this ad that the piece is referring to to give you an idea of what's happening in the state of florida. one of those battleground states, one of the nine that the candidates are focusing on. and our first state this morning as part of our battleground 2012 series. so here's this ad that's running in florida and in other states. >> i grew up in a socialist country, and i have seen what that does to people. there is no hope, no freedom, no pride in achievement. the nation became poorer and

poorer, and that's what i see happening here. as a young boy, i was fantasizing about one day going to america, making a success of myself. the american dream. america's wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success. take away their incentive with bad mouthing success, and you take away the route that helps us take care of the needy. yes, in socialism the rich will be poorer, but the poorer will also be poor per. people lose interest in really working hard and creating jobs. i think this is a very slippery slope. it seems like people don't learn from the past. that's why i'm voting republican and putting this ad on television. i'm thomas, and i'm responsible for the content of this advertising. >> host: an ad that's running in florida giving you an idea of the tenor of the campaign down in that state. we'll be talking about coming up at 8:30 a.m. eastern time here on on the "washington journal,"

part of our battleground series we're focusing on the nine swing states. the candidates are hopping from one to the other throughout the next 13 days leading up to the election -- >> you see "washington journal" every morning at 7 eastern on c-span. we're going back live now to the chamber of commerce's legal reform summit. in a few moments we'll hear from former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. he'll give his per spect us -- perspective on the elections. >> with that, please, join me in welcoming tom. [applause] >> thank you very much, lisa. good afternoon, i think, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. we are going to operate under the simple rules that we learned in our own homes, and that is eat quietly, and we'll speak

quickly. i want to thank lisa and our whole gang for a wonderful event here, but more particularly for an extraordinary program that morning, noon and night works on the fundamental issues of protecting the good things about our system of justice and dealing with those issues that are giving it great problems. and before i introduce the mayor, i just told him, you know, we're both new yorkers; quiet people, easy to get along with. [laughter] he was, when he was the mayor, you know, there was so many smart things he did, but he did two overriding things, he stopped the crime, and he cleaned up the streets. and from that day forward, he was famous. we're honored to have you here, mr. mayor. i'm going to introduce you in just a moment, and what i'd like to do, and i'm going to also cut this short a little, is say a few words about how the whole issue of the legal system is

fundamental to our economic recovery, our global competitiveness and our way of life. while every responsible party of any political persuasion in america should be and is probably singularly focused on one thing, jobs and economic growth, a handful of these lawyers are pursuing their own activities, and they're pursuing an agenda that increases lawsuits and tries to get them an advantage to put the money in their own pocket. let me give you numerical -- there are, what, a million lawyers in the united states? there aren't 2500 of them that are involved in this business that we're talking about, and they are the ones that we have to deal with. by the way, the idea of a class action is not a bad thing if it's done appropriately, except no fair getting everybody to walk past the building in the last 23 years. so what we're looking for is a little common sense.

a very interesting thing for us that we have been very successful on is dealing with the state legal systems. you're all familiar with the harris polls that found that seven in ten senior corporate attorneys say that a state's lawsuit client is a significant factor in where they're going to choose to expand, grow, put up factories, employ people. now, that seems pretty simple, doesn't it? and if you look at the states that chose to let that run rampant, then they have economic problems. if you look at the states that are protected -- that have protected companies and assured them of a fair legal system, they have a lot of growth and jobs. and i give just one example. in california you could save more than $5 billion in tort costs and create almost 900,000 jobs -- 300,000 jobs simply by improving the legal environment. that makes sense to me.

and we can go through all of those numbers, but i would rather transport my thoughts to the issue then of small businesses. we'll never have a sustainable recovery if we don't get a recovery in small business. look, you can go to a big pharmaceutical company or a big oil company, and you can have a great big lawsuit, and they're going to survive while it's going to be difficult and expensive, but you go after a small company, and they don't survive. it is fundamentally important to us not only to see the, what happens in a state as to what's going to happen to big companies, what is going to happen to big job growth, but to understand that small guys work in an interdependent way with large companies, but many, many of the jobs come from there, and we need to always keep in our mind what's happening with small companies. now, one of my new things,

mayor, you've got to get on to this deal in your talks, is every time we have a merger and acquisition in this country -- i've just been through one, i'm on a board, been on the board for 20 some years -- and i bet a cheeseburger and a beer -- and i won, so you want to know these are very high stakes. and i said to the chairman, the founder, we made this deal, and i said, oh, well, we'll have the lawsuits by early next week. oh, no, tom, he said, you know, it's a different kind of a company. we're not -- it didn't take three days, and, you know, i've got up to a cheese burger and two beers, and if we get another lawsuit, i might get to go to a real dinner. but the bottom line is, and we just put out a report today, every single merger and acquisition in this country with the exception of the two or three they miss, is a lawsuit. and it's simple, you know? here it is, and lots of times, by the way, you'll find

misprints in it because they got the names from the last suit they just did. and the whole idea is you want to close this deal in an orderly fashion, both companies get together. just pay 'em. if you ever made them go to court, they'd have a heart attack. and we're going to work really, really hard on embarrassing people into stopping this and pressing companies into standing up and saying we're not going to do this anymore because there are billions and billions of dollars changing hands here for no practical purpose, and i want to thank lisa and her folks for getting behind in the issue. and i want to tell all of you that support us that this is another step forward in broadening our activity while we keep our focus very strong and very narrow. what you all ought to think about as we go forward is that as we expand the regulatory process in this country, as we add regulation and regulation in the states and on the federal level, this is all intended to

expand the suits that can be brought against companies. it's a very calculated system in many quarters, and we need to keep that in mind because we are going to be spending all of our money and all of our time pursuing this issue. and that brings us to the issue of third party financing. i it's sort of interest -- i think it's sort of interesting. you know, you can sort of go and sell a share of the lawsuit you're going to bring. i've caught a few of our good members secondarily involved in this issue. i give them a few days to figure out a way to sort it out before i give my next speech, but the bottom line is we can't let this happen, and i want to congratulate all of the attorney generals that are here, particularly the ones that have stood up and say, hey, we're not doing this, we're not going to hire guys to do the lawsuits in in addition to that who are the

people that'll come in and fund our elections. we're going to do it in a straight up and down way, and if we're going to hire outside lawyers -- which is often necessary -- we're going to get people based on their ability to do this thing effectively. so i, i have lots of other things to say, but i'll sum it up by this: we put this organization together almost 15 years ago, and we've got a track record that speaks for itself all around the world. and it's very simple. we deeply respect the rule of law, we respect the right to sue, we respect people that have been injured to be compensated, but we don't see this as an industry for those who believe that they can leech themselves onto every transaction and to every problem and make tons of money on it. we are a -- we support the free

enterprise system. this doesn't quite measure up. so, ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank you very much for coming, and i am very anxious to take a moment to introduce a great leader and a great character. and character is important. and i'm going to define character in a minute. but as you know, rudy giuliani is affectionately known as america's mayor for masterminding the revitalization of one of the world's great cities. and his outstanding leadership during the 9/11 tragedy. during his tenure he reduced the crime rate in new york by more than half, and he cleaned up the streets. i keep adding that on my own deal. he reduced the welfare rolls by 60%. by reducing welfare? no, by increasing work. and during the city's and nation's most trying time, he stood up, he stood up as a man of great character and great

strength. president reagan named him associate attorney general at age 36, just a few years ago -- [laughter] and that was the third most powerful position in our justice department. spent six years as a u.s. attorney in the southern district. his prosecution rate was 99%. we don't want to get on the other side of him. and throughout his public career, he has recognized the importance of the legal system and the fact that we would protect it. i told you that he's a man of great character, and he's a character. rudy giuliani, you see what you get, and when he tells you something, he believes it, and he's a man of his word, his absolutely good. but he's also a character. you know, somebody once told me that presidents give press conferences every two or three months, governors give press conferences every month, and

mayors of big cities give press conferences four times a day. and you can't do that without a sense of humor, without a sense of being able to push back and without creating a circumstance in people's minds that you're an honorable man or woman, and is you're trying really hard to do this. but if you crowd me, i may step on you. and you had the strength to do that job, the courage to do that job, the character to do that job, and others have followed all over this country and around the world and regularly ask him how to to do that job. mr. mayor, i'm glad you're here, and i'm honored to introduce you. [applause] >> thank you very, very much, tom. i'm glad that i could make it here. i had to get myself out of bed.

i've been in bed since the yankees lost. [laughter] trying to recover. i'm in a state of total depression. and i may soon need the help of a psychiatrist, i'm not sure. [laughter] this time of year is reserved for me to be at yankee stadium, not give talks like this. so it's really hard. [laughter] but i have, as tom said, i've been a mayor and now i'm a partner at a law firm, and i had a security consulting firm, and i ran coal mines, and is i've done a lot of things in my life, but the thing i probably enjoyed the most was being the united states attorney in the southern district of new york, being the assistant district attorney, because it gives you a chance to do justice, a chance to do only what's right, and, of course, you look back on those years as probably your best, your best years. so i really admire what the chamber does for legal reform. because our legal system needs checks and balances on it to make sure that it's equitable

and that it's fair. and i also appreciate tremendously all the work you've done on tort reform. as the mayor of new york city, i was in charge of a hospital system that's the second largest public hospital system in the country, the new york city health and hospitals corporation. we owned 17 hospitals, 11 acute care hospitals. and, therefore, new york city insures all them. we're self-insured for all of their problems. you know what my tort bill was almost every year? $300 million for my hospitals. about $600 million for my city, but $300 million for my hospitals because of all the malpractice lawsuits. i would have to say without even worrying about being contradicted that half of that and more was just absolutely phony claims because we have a tort system in new york that is

completely unfair, completely biased. and when i thought about that 300 million, you know, to me what that meant was it cost me about $30 or $40 million to build a school. so you think about how many schools that could have built if i didn't have to pay out even half of that $300 million or how much i could have done in tax relief so that businesses could grow, or how much i could have done the make my police department or fire department even better. i mean, incredible amounts of wasted money. because when a jury in new york sees new york city as the defendant, they forget that they're really the defendant. that they're paying out their money, and they pay out money in huge quantities. so i worked tirelessly for tort reform in new york. i would illustrate all of our worst cases, i'll tell you our worst one before i talk about the election. this young man who was 28 years old running along the streets of new york city tripped in a

pothole, probably that pothole was there, my predecessor probably put it there. [laughter] probably, not me. i'm learning from president obama how you blame everything -- [laughter] on your predecessor. i didn't know that when i was the mayor, but that is really very convenient. [laughter] and he became paralyzed, which, of course, is tragic, right? he became paralyzed. and he brought a lawsuit against new york city, and he recovered $70 million from the jury. now, let me tell you the rest of the facts. the reason that he was running, he was running out of a subway station. the reason he was running out of the subway station is he had just hit a man over the head, stole his wallet and run away, and the police were chasing him. in the course of being chased by the police, he tripped and became paralyzed. he was sentenced to jail for 20 years, so he was obviously the, he was obviously the richest

1%er in sing sing prison. we finally got that reduced after battling in the court of appeals to $4 million which still made him the richest prisoner in sing sing. this is how absurd our legal system is in new york, and because of the hold that the trial lawyers have on the democrats in our state legislature and a few selected republicans, we can't do the tort reform that you've been able to accomplish in so many states. my law firm has big offices in the texas. i've seen all the wonderful things that have happened in texas from tort reform, how the number of doctors there has increased by 15, 20%, the cost of health care has actually gone down. so you keep at it, and if you ever need an ally to tell you about -- i mean, i've got about 20 horror stories like the one i just told you about ridiculous amounts of money that new york city had to pay out for claims that were totally frivolous and

did nothing to improve my hospitals. all they did was make my doctors paranoid that every single decision they made was going to get second guessed and made them practice much worse medicine than they would have practiced if they could just, you know, act normally. so we're in the middle of an election, did you know that? [laughter] and this is a really, this is really a very interesting -- i describe this as a fork in the road election. now, this is a fork in the road which on november 6th we're going to do a little differently than my biggest hero and my most famous philosopher, yogi berra, you know how he describes the fork in the road? if you come to a fork in the road, take it. [laughter] well, we're going to come to a fork in the road on november 6th, and we are going to take it in one direction or another. and i can't think of a time -- not even 1980 -- where the country will be very different a year from now depending on the

choice we make on november 6th. it could be a different country a year from now one way or the other depending on whatever side you're on, what you can't escape is certainly wr5rd the our domestic policy, our economy, our health care, our energy policy this country is going to be headed in one of two diametrically opposed directions. so let's look at, let's look at the -- i'm going to give a talk later on taxes and what, what's going on with regard to tax reform. but just look at taxes. if we elect or reelect president obama, we know the direction he's going to be pushing in, the direction he's going to be pushing in is to raise taxes on the top percentage, whatever that percentage he decides is going to be, probably 250 or more. the reality is that's not going to get him any money. so he's going to have to -- he's going to have to raise taxes on

a much larger percentage of americans if he really wants to get deficit reduction out of raising taxes. a president romney will go in exactly the opposite direction. now, how do i feel about that? when i became mayor of new york city, i had a city that had a deficit of about $3 billion. we had 10.5% unemployment, we had 1.1 million people on welfare. and we were coming to what was described -- and it's probably one of the reasons i got elected, i got elected because our economy was horrible, and we had just had 2,000 murders in the two years before i ran for mayor -- so i got elected as the first republican in 25 years and first one to remain a republican in 50. [laughter] i got elected with a very, very simple and direct campaign slogan: you can't do any worse.

[laughter] tell me how i can make things worse. could we go to 3,000 murders? could unemployment go to 15%? maybe instead of 500,000 people moving out, 600,000 will move out. so just give me a shot, and let's see what can happen. so my predecessor had done what a lot of people who should never be executives do, he had appointed a commission, you know, to tell him how to straighten out the economy, but the commission was going to report after the election. so the commission did report after the election, a month after, while i was getting ready to get sworn in. and they presented me with their report. and here was their report: you can close that $3 billion gap, you've got to raise taxes by about 20 or 25%. now, when you raise taxes in new york city, that means 40 different taxes that you can raise. i mean, there are endless number of taxes. so i had a little ceremony when

they presented it to me. people came in, they presented it to me. the press was there. they handed me the report. i knew what was in the report. i looked at it very, very quickly, and the press said to me, what are you going to do with the report? and this is how my tenure began. i said, here's what i'm going to do with the report. there's a little garbage pail right there -- [laughter] and i tossed it in the garbage pail in front of the press. i said that's where it belongs because this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever seen. i have a city that people are moving out of because taxes are too high. now you want me to raise taxes again, which means more people will move out, which means two years from now i'll have to raise taxes again, and then two -- and this has been going on under democratic mayors in new york city for 30 years. it's an endless cycle of raising taxes. i'm going to do it differently. i'm going to cut spending, going to cut it this year by 10%, next year by 10%, and then i'm going to take some of that savings from spending, and i'm going to put it into lowering taxes.

.. [laughter] it was a l paltry little $70 million. i said, peter, this is ridiculous. the big nest new york city history. there's never been a tack cut in the history of new york city government. it's the first time it happened. every single mayor in the past including republicans raised taxes. i did for eight years and ultimately we got big tax cuts

ending up being $3 or $4 billion in tax cuts. we were collecting more revenue from the lowest taxes than highest taxes it energized the economy. it took money out of the wasted pocket of the city, and put it in the hands of people who actually spend money in a productive and sensible way that produces jobs. it wasn't the only thing that turned around the economy of new york city, here's the difference, started with $10.5 percent. i left with 5.5 unemployment. i started started start 1.1 million people on welfare. i left with 500,000 people on welfare. i started with a city that had a population of 7.5 million and left with 8.1 million people population. a lot had to do with the fact we energized the private sector. that's the difference of what's going to happen with taxes depending on the choice the american people make on november

6th we're going to be fighting a battle all of next here how high does president obama want to raise our faxes, i don't care if he raises taxes on the rimp, the poor, or the poor don't pay taxes. the rich or the middle class, whatever he raises taxes, it's too much money being given to a government that doesn't know how to spend money. what the government needs is what ronald reagan did is put on a doubt. -- diet. it needsless money and figure out how to get along on less money. it has to leave the money in the private sector. if romney gets elected that will be the debate. if romney gets the the debate will be how low can we keep taxes. how can we reform the tax system? how can we either go to a flat tax or at least flatten our taxes so that we end up with one or two rates, we end up with

fewer dededuction and everyone semp sixth. i think governor romney is right you don't list them now. he couldn't know. you negotiate that about that -- but the difference in direction will be dramatic. one case the direction will be how do we increase revenues to the government, and the other case, the direction will be how do we at least keep revenues where they are and see if we can't reduce them a little. where do we find reduction in spending? that's exciting period of time to go through. that's what i went through when i worked for president reagan as associate attorney general. president reagan even with a democratic house of representatives was able to do a massive tax cut at the same time he cut spending, put all these agencies here on strict austerity. i was in the justice department,

we were cut 10% every year for two years. and believe me, we didn't like it, but after a six or seven month discipline like that, we started to find gee, you know, the justice department is not the most efficient organization in the world. it actually does waste money. and there are places that you can save. that kind of discipline in our economy will mean tremendous economic growth next year. i think that's one of the major differences the american have to decide on on november 6 president health care, awe -- as you know two different direction. obamacare becomes the law of the land for sure if obama is elected. it becomes institutionalized. it becomes nothing is impossible but it becomes close to impossible to reverse four years from now. it will be operating then, people will have moved over, there will be a tremendous changes. mandate would have been enforced

already. 20,000irs agencies will get hired. which is absolutely ludicrous. what we need 20,000 more irs agents. there's no way to stop that because even if you have a republican house, which sing almost forsure. nothing in life is for sure but that is almost for sure. if even you have a republican senate which is isn't likely if president obama can get elected. he can veto any attempt they make in overturning obamacare. they are reinforcing bach and accepting it as the future. if a president romney is elected, even without a republican senate, it's basically the president votes in the house about the same, and a senate within one war two votes

of being republican, he can get obamacare overturned. he can do it through reconciliation. there are easily four our five democratic votes in the senate to vote with him. 2014 elections are right around the corner. they are always right around the corner. a lot of democrats coming up in 2014 that are inin states that do not obamacare as favorable. it would be easy for romney to pick off four or five democrats. probably not goat 6054, or 55 or of a votes through reconciliation to get rid of just about all of obamacare. so two totally dramatic direction. we either expand the government control of health care, which is what obamacare does. i don't care how you describe it. you end up with 40 or 50 million people being covered by the government. the government expanded dramatically the control over health care. it becomes the price setter because it's setting the price for the vast majority of

customers. everything else has to follow in line. we end up with one of these committees or commissions deciding on things like what substitutes your insurance? this part of obamacare has not really been examined, people don't realize this the real damage to our economy in obamacare is going to be when that commission or committee gets together and gets to define insurance. the mandate, which is either a tax or a fine, the mandate applies if you don't have health insurance. but what institutes health insurance? not anything you say substitutes health . not anything i say. it's what washington says that constitute washington. they get to write the list behalf is legally sufficient health insurance. i hate to bring this up, because i don't think governor romney

would like me to bring it up. this is what made health care in massachusetts three times more expensive than people thought. when they sat down to define health insurance, everybody added everything to the list and the cost of health insurance went way up. that's going to happen on a national level and you know when obama appointed commission is going to cover everything if you cover condoms, you have to cover everything; right? [laughter] you should cover viagra, it's only fair. [laughter] they're going to cover erg. every single thing. whatever the government is suggesting, obamacare is going to cost i guarantee this, i'll come back here two years from now, i hope i don't have to it will cost twice as much. it will be a disaster for our economy. no way our economy can have a healthy recovery the tremendous burden additional burden placed on it.

if romney gets elected, then obama obamacare will be gone, and what will be substituted is trying to get the private sector a lot more revitalized in dealing with health care and health insurance. maybe a very significant tax exemption for people to buy their own health insurance. so we don't rely on employers to buy health insurance. people can go out and negotiate for their own policy. you'll see tort reform really happen. which can bring down and take out a lot of the cost of it. you'll see a lot more ability to buy health insurance from different states instead of being stuck in one state where the state gets to define the policy. you'll have fifty states available so the health insurance providers will have to imeet each other. if you set an exemption level of about 20,000 for a family, you'll see insurance companies trying to price their product a little below that. even a product now maybe they're

sell for $22 ,000. they'll set for $17,000. they can get more volume at $16, $17,000 than they get can get at $23 ,000. it doesn't happen right now. there are no market dynamics working in bringing down the cost of health care. so i think that's the direction you'll see. i think that's the direction that will revitalize our economy. it will underscore the private enterprise entrepreneurial nature of our economy rather than sit on it. another big dramatic difference in direction is energy. i work in the energy field quite a bit. it's probably the one i know the best. the basically it's going to be a difference of just say no or just say yes. basically we have an administration that has said basically no to all the areas of energy development that will actually help us become energy

independent or more energy independent. let's start with coal. america has more coal reserves than saudi arabia has oil reserves. but we can't really expand them because we're worried about what coal will do to the environment. here's the irony of this, china is buying our coal. india is buying our coal. they are burning it in china or in india. it's the same -- it's going the same place. so why aren't we burning if? if they're burning it why aren't we burning it. we can probably figure out to burn it in a safer or cleaner way. the obama administration put the say no to coal. it that cuts out half of the electrical power source in the country. you tell me how a country that can grow and needs more energy. you tell me how it country have hybrid vehicles that are plugged in the war if we don't provide

more electricity? this is like living in some kind of "fantasy" land. it's a wonderful hybrid vehicle have to get plugged in to the wall. we have hybrid vehicles driving around we have to have about 35% more electricity. we're on a path to less electricity not more. 50% is gone. that's going to keep going down. we put the stop on coal. so okay, where else do we get electricity from? well, we get it from a nuclear power. nuclear -- we have 104 nuclear power plants. they such my from 20 to 25 percent of the source of in the case of my city it's about 25%. nuclear power -- we haven't licensed a nuclear power plant except one in the last thirty years. the other ones are getting old. and there's no appetite in the

part of the administration for expanding nuclear power. have you ever heard president obama say expand nuclear power? my goodness jane phone d.a. would go crazy. remember china syndrome? we're not going expand nuclear power. it cuts out 70% of our present source of energy supply we just say no to that. coal, nuclear power. so now we're going do it on the -- [inaudible] no, with we're not because about 20 to 25% of that is [inaudible] now we have this wonderful reserve of natural gas. didn't even know it about seven or eight years ago through fra -- we can get oil from that. what is china doing about fracking? they are building i fifty

nuclear power plants. we are building none. what is china doing about coil. that are burning coal. what is china doing about franking. they are moving as quickly as they can to expand tracking as much as possible. they are doing everything slow down fracking. they can do everything terrible things. we've only been doing it for 18 years in texas. it hasn't done anything yet. we have only been doing nuclear power for forto years. we have never had a single loss of nuclear power in forty years of operation. a major cats tee in pennsylvania, three mile island, no casualties. that's a pretty good safety record. that's a pretty good risk reward analysis if you are being practical about this. if you are exercising common sense about this, if you are not letting ideology overcome.

but fracking we're going slow that down too. so now we have hydroelectric power. that's about 7 or 8 prptd. when is the last hydroelectric facility go go on developed in the country? what do you think the changes are a administration would approve a new one. none. here's what we are done to. we're enthusiastic about two sources of energy that presently produce less than 2% of our source of electrical power in the country. with this country is going to grow on 2 percent. one is called wind and the other called solar. the administration has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in that, wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of it. solyndra is only one of about four similar situations of disastrous economic decisions that have cost now maybe approaching a trillion dollars.

and nobody is figure how to store the power that comes from wind or from solar. nor is there anything on draughting board that makes it feasible in the next ten to fifteen years. if you can't store the power from wind and solar. it's basically useless, when it wind doesn't blow, my city blacks out. when the sun is down, which is like the nighttime -- [laughter] i freeze. can it help a little? could we go from 2% over the next ten years to 5 or 6 or 7 percent? wind and solar, yeah? is it cost effective. probably not. could we do it because it makes people who treat it as a religion rather than a common sense enterprise happy. yeah, we could do that. this is what the obama administration emergency policy is.

it's wind and solar. more drilling, the only drilling that occurred on private land, they go through torture to get permits to expand they pay big fees to my law firm. i shouldn't complain about that. they go through torture to get the permit on private land. there's no been no passion. we have a pipeline that has been stopped by the obama administration even though it was approve bid the state department and hillary clinton. here's the one that kills me the most, you know, you the way china is burning our coal and sending up to the environment? china has agreed with cuba that it's going drill for oil twentd miles off the coast of cuba, which i think is 70 miles off the coast of florida? and we're not drilling for it. and it's our oil.

explain to me. china is going to do it safer than we would do it? we're not drilling because we're afraid of an oil spill. but china is going to extract the oil from the ground in a safer way than we do. so this election is going to be two very, very different directions. obama gets re-elected, i reaffirms and strong erm terms of say no approach to energy. i think nuclear power is finished, i think coal is finished, i think fracking gets slowed down because if you get intimidated by the environmentalist over the keystonepipeline. wait until you see what they do over fracking. err we're going to be working on wind and solar and china is going to be working on everything else. once we're going to lose the competition to china. if romney gets elected you'll have a say yes approach. we'll have an energy policy that

tries to exploit all the resources we have available to us. do it in a environmentally safer way as possible. don't become completely immobile because of, you know, fantasies what of can happen. and finally, foreign policy. in the debate, the other night it seemed to me that there was a difference between a president who seemed extremely angry, who seemed extremely sarcastic, and a man who seems to be ready to be president of the united states. maybe because mitt romney has achieved a great deal in his life and has been successful in everything he's done and barack obama never really was prepared to be president of the united states. we fobbing a chance on a man whose ray say would not be approved to be head of any

corporation in the country. a man who never ran a business, man who never ran a military unit, never met a payroll, had no practical experience. sometimes somebody can have the talents to be a great executive and never have a chance to though before. he got his chance. we have the highest unemployment for a sustained period since we had since the great deposition. he has had his chance. now we have a chance to have a man who has been successful in a life in a way that converts itself to be a effective executive you put practicality ahead of ideology which what a president has to do. even the president who i love the most, who was the most conservative president probably we had in the last 200 years. always put practicality ahead of everything when he was making decisions for the american people. i think that's the difference in choice. one final thought and we'll get to the question. it's about foreign policy.

ly not talk for a long time about foreign policies. i don't think the american people are going to decide the election based on foreign policy. i need an answer as a citizens and the only unsatisfying part of the debate was it ended out my getting the answer. twice before -- 2012 on our consulate in benghazi twice before, in april and june of 2012 that exact consulate was attacked by islamic extremist terrorists. second time it was attacked, they blew a whole in the wall and according to the eye witnesses was big enough for a truck go through. now i want to know if the president knew that. i want to know if the president knew that on september 12th, 2012. i can't conceive that he department know it. if he didn't know it. we are really in a disaster. if somehow the consulate in

benghazi could be attacked twice, once with a big hole in the wall and national security adviser during the security briefings he's supposed to get every day didn't tell him. then we have a serious problem. what is the answer? did he know about it? if he didn't know about it, explain two things to me. why wasn't there further security for the cobs -- consulate. why were we there in the first place? the british pulled the consulate out. they took the cons late out after the first attack. the british government wasn't afraid of the embarrassment that might happen because maybe libya wasn't successful as the obama administration was trying to pretended it was. they were more concernedded about the safety and lifts of their personnel. we have the two attacks. we didn't give the consulate any more security, according to state department employees, we rejected request for more security and we actually reduced

the security. now when the attack takes place on september 12, 2012 you're the. president of the united sts and there have been two prior terrorist attacks on that consulate, how long does it take you to figure out that this was not a protest over a mohammad movie? but what was actually an attack by the same islamist extremist that tries to attack it before. i stay takes you about a on in the figure it out. i figured it about three minutes after i was told about it while he was meet meeting many other people that i survived september 11th with. for the last ten years, i get together that worked with me that day, some of us for the luck of god escaping death or tremendous damage. and when i was told about it my first reaction was september 11, an attack, benghazi? got to be a planned terrorist attack.

instead we're treated to two or three weeks of the nonsense about the mohammad movie, and how this crazy man who did this stupid movie caused this, and can't -- there's something really wrong here. if in fact the president knew about those two prior attacks. it can't be possible he would allow the administration to peddle that dribble for two weeks when you know that this consulate was a target of islamic extremist terrorist twice before and there was the third time. and before this election gets decided, and somebody should get that answer from the president. and i was kind of -- i was kind of a disappointed in the debate because we didn't find that out. but hopefully before the election is over, we will. so who has any questions? yes, sir. >> hi, my name is tom i'm the executive directer of new york.

we work with your success or's officer to to turn the tide of the reform in the state. my question to you is when you were mayor, what tort reform specifically did you advocate for that you thought would really help the city relieve itself of the burden with lawsuit and litigation? >> the most important thing for the city to have a limit on punitive damages, a limit on pain and suffering, a connection to actual economic laws, maybe limit to 1 00,000 that was a bill we supported that never passed because of the democratic ladies and gentlementy in the state legislature. i don't want to blame it on the democratic majority. the trial lawyers owned about four or five. republicans as well. what we wanted was a limit on pain and suffering, punitive damages, about 250 maybe negotiate the 500,000. and then the rest of it

connected to economic laws and maybe two or three times multiple of economic laws. that would have probably saved us just quick, you know, back to the envelope calculation probably saved about $150 million a year if we had gotten that through. and the trial law lawyers had control the state legislature even at times in which we had terrible budget deficit. we couldn't get it through the legislature. texas went 2003, 2002, 2003, passed pretty massive tort reform and we have doctors now that were training in hospitals in new york the first place they want to go is practice medicine is texas not new york. it's not only a financial burden of mass proportions, it's also a brain drain problem. we're losing a lot of the best doctors to over states that have passed tort reform. where being a doctor can be enjoyable way of life than being

harassed by lawsuits when you did nothing wrong. >> mayor, i'm state representative doug miller from texas. thank you for your compliment. i appreciate that. [laughter] we have been working hard and we continue to and that's one of the reason i'm here today. i think another issue that you didn't address but i'd like to hear your comments on is that this election also is two different directions on whether we're going to allow -- i know i have several of my colleagues that from other states that are state legislators here but the direction of where we're going to allow a states to have their rights versus a stronger centralized federally government which we see all over the world does not work. in a number of cases, i'd like to hear your comment on state right v versus federal right.

>> i think you're right. if president obama is elected there's more concentration of power in washington. obamacare is a massive concentration of power in washington. all of the new regulations, dodd-frank, dodd-frank has to be one of the great ironies that it's named dodd-frank since it's named for the two people who probably did the most to create the financial crisis in the first place. [laughter] the two guys that protected fannie and freddie for the meaningful reforms during the clinton and the bush administration. the two people who fought any kind of reform of fannie and freddie and all the mortgages that issue given to people that couldn't possibly have paid for their homes. i mean, a totally unrealistic silly, crazy idea. >> right. >> everybody should have a home. that's twoferl say. here's what you have to finish.

everybody should have a home that can afford to pay for the home. everybody cannot not afford to have a home who can't pay for the home. we are going bankrupt the entire system. fannie and freddie that. did wall street add to that? of course it did. would the banks have made the loan to the people who couldn't pay if the government hadn't jammed it down the their throat? of course not. banks don't want to lose money unless the government is there giving them encourage and protection the major reason for our financial debacle at the core were millions and millions and millions of mortgages that were given to people that had no ability to pay the mortgage. and that was forced by the federal government starting in the clinton administration, there was an ape tempt even though the clinton administration tolessly it down when they get out of control, i think they realized they pushed thing in the wrong direction. the bush administration tried on tree occasion and the people that bought were dodd-frank and

the bill is named after them. one of them got a great mortgage along the way, by the way. when you read the bill, didn't address itself to the problem. it doesn't do anything about spreading out the mortgage situation in the future. it has to do with lots of regulations, about five times more regulations -- [inaudible] fcc doesn't have the staff to write them and if obama gets reelected they will the staff to write them. the financial institutions will be burdened by many more cost of productivity and we will continue to lose ipo and everything else to london, to tokyo, the middle east, to other places in the world. there will be a tremendous concentration of power here because i think this is an honest disagreement between two -- [inaudible] i think their philosophy is long, their philosophy is that

central government works. my philosophy it that government closest to the people -- [inaudible] and a mayor i saw that they not helped by federal intervention or federal guidance dense ore destruction. almost all of is it useless of expect pendture of time and money. reporting report that don't exist. hiring people that aren't teaching in a instead of filling out report that department of education wants. people wonder budget for my school and was the mayor was $12 billion. half of it got spend on the kids in the classroom. it was a lot of that big budget is because department of education. and there's a state department of education and there's a city board of education.

by the time you get to the kids there's only a few pennys left. yes, sir? >> thank you tim with the manhattan substitute. i wanted to ask you reflect back looking at the days a prosecutor what we have seen an increasing trend in terms of business prosecution or it's really nonprosecution or deferred prosecution. clearly there's a case to prosecute real fraud, you did it yourself. but over the last ten years of the federal level we have seen explosion in the deferred and nonprosecution agreement against business the justice department is calling a lot of shots how business operate and in new york the state attorney general has taken this old act off the shelf and often just with a press conference not even filing anything reshape entire industry. how do you think about this and what's a good way of out it?

>> i mean, i think the whole concept of prosecutionial discretion has erode. it doesn't mean you don't bring a case when somebody is innocent. that's actually a decision that the prosecutor has to make that way. prosecute discussion is you don't bring a case when the consequences outweigh the wrong doing. and it makes no sense to pursue the case or bring the case. it also means that you don't engage in these investigations some of which i'm familiar with in which the whole objective of the prosecutor was to force a settlement because the company, particularly a public company couldn't fight the case. they couldn't fight the case because it would do damage or two, three, four year period to the market cap. they might win the case. they might be bankrupted by the time they are finished. prosecutors have the have the discretion to release you can't

do. you can't conduct the long investigation. you shouldn't -- you should be aware of the fact that you have the power and very circumspect about using i it. i think it changed over the years. i think it only 457s with a change in the just want department and a different view from the justice department about how you handle prosecutorial discretion. it's nothing you can enact in to law that i think of that would change that. it becomes an exercise of equity and commons sense by either the attorney general, the u.s. attorney, the or the chief prosecutor in a particular jurisdiction. >> yes, sir? >> mayor, i'm dan conway. there's more reports about cyberattacks on the federal agencies and financial institutions. how serious is this threat, and

what is the best way -- what are we going do to defend against it? >> it's a very serious threat. it's a very serious threat because we vice president -- we haven't moved our -- our security hasn't moved a head at the same level as the technology. the security is lagging on technology. the way i describe it is in the old days before we had the internet, right, he all these enormously important records or money an was kept in vaults and guarded by people. right, you couldn't get to the money in a bank unless you broke in and got past a security guards and the guns and alarms. now all of that is sitting in space. right. in cyberspace. all of that very sensitive information, cash, money, records, sitting in cyberspace. how protected is that? i don't think it is protected the way it should be.

we haven't invested the money we have to invest in figuring how to secure it. the best method of security, by the way, is to hire a company that will attack it. hire a company that will constantly go after your information, i work with a company for a couple of years that used to make the following offer, it only failed once. they said, it would come to you scene say give us a contract to protect your information. you would say how much. and it was a enormous amount of money. give us a one month period and we're going to try to hack in. if we can't hack in, don't hire us. if we can you better hire us. we'll fix it. that company failed only once to be able to get in. which gives you an of idea how insecure a lot of these protective systems are. the only method that presently exist that is effect sieve the method the united states

government use to protect the most important secret. the defense secret. we have skills people working for us, working as parts of the military that attack that system all the time. and as soon as they can get in, they close that breach. and then three days later when they get in, they close the breach. and private business doesn't invest enough money in doing that to have a kind of protection we should have given the kinds of records that are there. the way i describe it is the technology has gotten ahead of our security. our technology is state-of-the-art, and our security is like four or five years behind that. >> once again, i want to thank you very much. i want to thank you you for the work of the chamber, and encourage you to continue your pursuits because i think you've made a tremendous difference. thank you. [applause]

[applause] great remarks. thank you so much. we now come to the presentation of ilr's version of the oscars. the 2012 legal reform awards. and up first is the judicial achievement award and we are very pleased to present this year's judicial award. >> we are leaving the chamber of commerce event at this point and return live at 2:30 eastern to share the report with the head of the consumer product safety commission nancy nord. and santorum that's coming up on c-span2. elsewhere on the c-span networking campaign rally for vice presidential candidate paul

ryan at 2u9 20 eastern. he's expected to talk about the economy. he'll be greeting supporters at cleveland state university in ohio. we'll have that on c-span. romney is in ohio tomorrow, and that's after stops today in reno, nevada, and cedar rapids, iowa. he was in colorado yesterday to speak about the presidential debate that took place earlier this week. barack obama has a campaign rally coming up in colorado. at 4:55 eastern we will have live coverage of that. [applause] [applause] thank you very much, jason, and a wrm welcome to you candy,

gwen, and judy. we are pleased you joined us here at the museum. judy, we thank you for serving on the board. we are delighted. >> that's how it happened. yeah. [laughter] everyone, they invited me. >> full disclosure. i'd like to ask each of you a series of questions about the presidential debate. just been through and conventions and general and your most recent experiences because we knew gwen and judy were coming directly over here from the programs this evening, we aren't sure '02 would make through the traffic on time. we teed it up to start off with one of the clips from candy, your recent experience at the second presidential debate. and what you moderated. in other words there's no coin toss to determine who goes first. [laughter] we ask it on alphabetically and come up with the same order. let's take a look at the clip from the second presidential debate between president obama

and governor romney just last week at hofstra university. i think the clips demonstrate just how contentious the debate it was. roll the clips, please. >> let me mention something else the president said a moment ago. i didn't get a chance when he was describing chinese investment and so forth. baumgartner: hold >> moderator: i'm sorry. >> mr. president, i can -- [inaudible] senator romney -- governor romney. see the people. they enter weight for you. >> any investment i have over the last eight years have been mask bade blind trust. i understand they include investment outside the united states including chinese company. if you looked at your pension, mr. president, have you looked at your pension? have you looked at your pension? [laughter]

i don't look at my pension, it's not as big as yours. [laughter] >> let me give you some advice. look at your pension wrowb have investments in chinese company. you have investments outside the united states. you have investment -- >> moderator: we are way off the topic here, governor romney. we off are way off the topic. >> i -- [inaudible] [laughter] [laughter] >> i think it's interesting the president said something which is that on the day after attack went to the rose garden and said it was an act of terror. you said in the rose garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. it was not a response feign use demonstration. >> please proceed. >> i want to make sure we get that for the record. it took the president fourteen days before he called the act in benghazi. >> he did in fact, sir. let me call it an act of

terror. >> can you say that a little louder, candy. >> moderator: he did call it an act of terror. had did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot about the tape to come out. you're right about that. >> the administration -- [applause] the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video it was a spaintd use reaction. it took them a lock time to say it was a terrorist act bay terrorist group. and to suggest am i incorrect in that regard on sunday the your secretary -- excuse me the ambassador of the united nations went on the sunday television show and spoke about how -- i have . >> a longer conversation. >> moderator: i want to move you on. people can go to the transcript and . >> i want to make sure that -- >> moderator: folks are going will have a get their questions answered. [applause]

[laughter] >> execute both extent hads on it. debate playing -- [inaudible] not to the middle or the independent. >> there's hold the clip until the end. we're going to come back to the convention coverage with glen and judy -- gwen and judy. let's go to candy's experience. i have seen the clip several times. it's interesting it and not watching it. you just recognize z how contentious it is. you feel the tension. what it was like from your perspective, candy? >> a couple of things, actually, it was laugh. i had a great time i know that makes me pee peculiar. it was fun. i mean, the lead up to it and georgia and -- gwen can tell you the tension leading up to is it awful. i mean, i felt like i was pregnant for six weeks. every morning i work up and i

was nauseous. what if code pirchgs get in there and start screaming. anything that, you know, could go wrong had already gone wrong in my head, and once i got out there i thought wow. i know how do this. >> exactly. once i was there. i think it's funny watching it. it was -- i was conscious of the 82 people sitting here who had been there, by the way, since 8:00 in the morning. and wanting to get as much their questions in. i was conscious of wanting to let them go at it when they were going at it. so i didn't, you know, you're going go over time. all the things group also think, okay we have heard this six times. could we move it on we are wrapped around this or that ax. we can we move it on. it was so instinct usual. it is like pander hood in some

ways. you thinkly never do that. i saw that moderator doing that and you end up doing that. there's a lots of parallels and so you just it's an organic kind of thing and your reacting in the moment rather than any sort of formula people might set out for. >> could you tell from the offset it was going to be con tissues. >> we knew it was. when we knew two men standing on a stage and honestly, i -- they just were so like -- you know, territorial so that that all started and we realize their first full-on argument is whether we were drilling on public lands. really? we're having , i mean, it was so heated. and i thought, wow and the subject was gas prices. but okay. but we knew going in to it, i'm sure you all kind of see it the president could not have a debate where it looked like he didn't want to be there. we knew he would loaded for

bear. we made the mistake of thinking -- i made the mistake. you were probably smarter. i thought there's the nice people there. they're not going to argue in front of them. they're going to have to taupe -- tone it con a little bit. occurred to me after wards when i was trying to figure out why so many thought why they would be nice. they wouldn't be overheated and i think that we mistook this as a debate for undecided voters. it wasn't, it was for the bases. the undecided voters were the audience and that's why where the questions came from. but they were praying to their bay bah is bayses . >> i know it's not our turn. you can see listening to candy and looking at gwen who moderated the last vice presidential. they are looking for people who are not going to be intimidated by the candidates and can deal with a situation where the candidates are very nice or the opposite of very nice.

and so you have to have the skill set that candy and gwen and the other votes that have chosen in order to deal with the uncertainty. >> i think it's a compliment. it might also -- [laughter] never mind. never mind. [laughter] >> it's a compliment. >> okay. >> were you ever tempted to come behind the podium and separate them? >> no i think you learn a lot -- i thought it was fascinating. and also, it was less hot on the stage than it appeared on tv. the tv heats thicks up. they look closer together and more -- i got the feeling that here are two meantime was running out, they are look at the dead heat polls and were territorial. they didn't want to give up a second and an inch of argument. i didn't get the hatred that everybody thought they saw. i do not pick up that vibe. >> i have to admit, the last question came from my pkd watching big time wrestling when

i was a child. you received a lot of tension on the libya question and in hindsight would so you handled it any differently than the way you did. >> no. i think i would have done that. i think with looking at it -- what you don't see is -- i saw them beginning to get wrapped around the axle of what words were said in the rose garden the next day. the larger point that romney was going to i don't know what happened in this benghazi saying. you took two weeks and thought it was a tape and then. so while it is going on, i read the transcript and thinking, oh my lord, we're going sit here for ten minutes. yes, no, yes. i was trying to move them on. to say, yes, he did. but the larger point here is this and that and the other thing. and so -- [laughter] and again, i respect both these men. they are super smart and have a tough job.

but they -- the president obama is like right here. they're both right is any right eye and one in the left. the president sit on the stool and the governor is looking and they are both looking at me and saying yes we did. no yes. and they both looked at me. it feels so familiar to me. and so i just intickettively said he did in -- he yes whatever i said and turn to romney but the larger point i wish i had been that was short hand. a lot of people have asking me what you did and whether you thought it was appropriate as if it matters what i i think. besides your being my friend. i defended you because the secret is not that you interjected that you had it right when you interject the. that's the key. [laughter] [inaudible] i never -- [laughter] and we the conspiracy theory that somehow i had a transcript with me.

>> i didn't hear that part. >> i had a transcript because i knew somehow that was going to come up. as you know as reporters, things stick in your brain and you don't know where they come from. >> they on the know while you do the work. >> stick in the mind of good reporters. i wish i had been a tiny bit more articulate when saying to romney you are right that. what happened was i said the first thing, people started to applaud, which startled me a little bit. i didn't think was it as startling and why turn to the governor and said, the governor you're right about this not the other thing. the other side clapped. in all the clapping, people missed the totality of what was going on. >> your observations, gwen, and judy, i hope you would answer as well, what is the role of the moderator in the these debates and does it differ? does it vary depending on the format of the debate? >> of course it differs

depending on format. it was a panel of reporters when judy. >> 1988 it was a vice vice presidential benson quayle. there were three reporters and a moderator. >> a great debate. >> and the difference is when you're, you know, moderators solo moderators have complete control. you decide it's a little different with candy. he was moderating a town hall. it was different from one in which you had. i had all the questions in my hand. i knew what order i wanted to go. nobody knew that. that put a lot of pressure on me to make sure it was right. that i read the transcript. i knew everything that said that might not be i said before. that i could be prepared. and every moderator has a different style and idea. you can bring all four moderators and they would answer it slightly differently about what they thought their role

was. >> as see the role, and i obviously candy and gwen to speak for themselves. the moderator is there -- to bring the candidates out on the most important issues. whatever it is, that you think are the most urgent most important issues they oughted to be cancel -- dealing with and the framework is doing going to differ from debate to debate from domestic to foreign. we talk about what we think about the separation of framework. it's to give the candidates a chance to speak up themselves and when appropriate to probe when you feel they're not answering the question. and every moderator is going to do that in a slightly different way. >> is the town hall format useful, do you think. >> i was surprised the people in the town hall became more prop like. the candidate didn't take greater pain to answer the question. i'm used to saying politicians take a question and turn it

around and say whatever it is they wanted to say. china, let's talk about domestic policy. fine. i get that. i thought that maybe little naive, i thought maybe they would feel the need to do what bill clinton advised which is also answer the question from voters because otherwise it looks like you're not respecting them. >> you got the sense they felt there was so much at station. at this moment and that moment in the campaign. they could not afford to carry out the mission. in the president's case to be there and prosecute his case aggressively. and in romney's case continue to be presidential. and to have smart answers to questions. >> yeah. >> candy? >> i like the town hall or mat. i like the idea of it. i like -- and i got i had close to my guys. i've been with them for a long time that day. and they were, you know, so egger to talk to them. and i guess the problem is always the same because there

were many times i don't know if you remember about the second question was about gas prices and it was -- the first question was pretty knew neutral. i'm a 20-year-old i'm worried i'm not going to have a job. the second question went straight at the president and said, your energy secretary says it's not his job to keep energy prices down. and the next thing i know we are having an argument about drilling in public land. so, you know, i went back and said, but the question was do you think that it's the job of the government and they went off on the next public land thing. so then you have eaten up so much time in this, one, two, three less town hall people. i don't know what it is, i think it is a great job. i don't know what it is that somehow says -- but the question is. i did it a couple of times. i felt i could do without legally blowing the format. with guns i think we went off on

-- finally the question is guns. >> they never answer that. >> the single mother. >> the mothers mother marriage. >> the more -- format is better today than back in the day it was stricter. we were told you ask a question, no followup, two minutes one minute and i was told to interrupt if they didn't. and the red light and there was a buzzer. there were all sorts of strict restrictions on the candidates. today there is sure there are some guidelines. but they're given more time to have a conversation to debate. and you learn more that way. >> i think that if the candidates come to the debate with every intention of ignoring rule, they themselves have agreed to, very little that a moderator can do except look steam rollered by it. when i did a sit down with debate with cheney and edward whom i would ask different questions of today.

[laughter] there was a light -- they could see the light. they knew when they were over time. i remember on one occasion, i got flak because vice president cheney said i don't know if i can answer that in third seconds. and i said that's all you got. apparently people began applauding in bars across to america. i was thinking to think what the rules were. >> i'm sorry. >> the candidates. >> and do moderators have any input to the rules ahead of time? i guess . >> they give you something they ask you to sign and you . >> i didn't even get that. good. >> so you're not bound by the rules they said? >> here's the problem with a whole time thing, first of all, i didn't like get in to it to be the school mar for two minute or three minutes. if they're having a conversation that shows something about the

two of them. you don't want to artificially cut it off. nor on the other hand do you want them to go on something bad. it's more organic choice like what's going on in the moment right now? >> and it calls on you, the moderator to use your judgment. when you feel they have gone on exhausted the subject or almost exhausted and it's time to move on and when the audience is going to benefit from hearing something. >> do you keep the time or the moderators? >> kept by time keeper people. >> the time keeper people. >> who my case tell you if they were e qvc lentd apt of time they got. you wanted to make sure the base of the time keeper i hope not. i was relying on them. ..

>> i don't consider that restraint. we all function by rules, so -- >> judy, you raised the point about the structure of the debates on topickings. do you -- topics. do you like that format? one is for foreign affairs, one is for -- >> you know, i think in an ideal situation you think, well, a president deals a great deal with foreign policy, a president deals a great deal with domestic policy, so i think ideally it makes a lot of sense just to make sure that you're not going to be so heavily weighted one way or another. for example, in the 2004 election when iraq was a huge issue, i could, i could -- i

think gwen will remember this better than i will -- you know, that may have been a time when, you know, when the candidates would want to spend a lot more time on foreign policy and less -- right now most voters say their primary concern is the economy. so i think, you know, maybe there needs to be a little more flexibility on that. you know, i know candy, i'm sure, was jug, buzz thinking about that as you were -- juggling that as she was thinking about what questions to take from her town hall participants. >> and you do, they did get three debates. so we go back and look at what was covered pretty author rily in this debate. at one point the president looked at me and said we haven't discussed education at all. i'm sorry, you discussed it for 20 minutes in the -- i didn't say that. [laughter] so, you know, you try to -- and we knew that an entirely foreign policy debate was coming afterwards, so we didn't want to

spend, we knew that they would -- and, remember, the first questions all came from the town hall, so we were, i couldn't just, you know, come up with a question about something that wasn't represented in their questions. um, but we knew that syria and iran and israel that would be so thoroughly covered, that we didn't feel the need to fill that hole. >> but immigration and gun control might not. >> immigration and gun control, i was dying to get in climate change, but -- >> you assumed there was the last chance that was going to be -- >> right. >> how do you prepare for the debates? i assume each of you have your own individual meds of doing -- methods of doing it. >> i make myself insane. [laughter] i shut myself up in my house with a lot of 3x5 cards, 5x7 cards, and i read all the books that the candidates have written, and i try to read as many of their stump speeches as i can, and i write myself about

100 questions when i know i'm going to get 20 in. i don't think i got that many. and then i rehearse. of course, they stuck with the rules in my debates. i'm a tougher babe. yeah, not so much. [laughter] and then you just absorb id. and then after all of that you have to just stop. you have to just know it well enough that you can instinctively know how to have the conversation. because in the end it's a debate, but it's still a conversation. since that's what we do every day in our day jobs, you apply your instincts to that as well. >> uh-huh. candy? >> hardest thing i've ever done, by the way. >> i did it kind of backwards because we didn't -- we got the questions at, like, 9:30 that morning. >> a ah. >> from the town hallers. so we didn't know what was coming, but really you kind of know what's coming because you know what the issues are that are on voters' minds, because we've been doing this for a year and a half. so i kind of, we went backwards, i had a great group of cnn, and

we kind of came out, you know, i bet he'd say this, but let's remember he said this before, same kind of thing you were talking about, you need to know what they've said on this case in case suddenly a whole new thing has happened. i said to somebody at one point, you know, i need to know 100% of stuff, and i'll probably use 1% of that, but i don't know which, so i have to know 100%. >> it should be said that i paid the price for reading both biographies of sarah palin and joe biden because i left them on the steps at home on the way down from my office. on the night before i was flying to st. louis, i was very proud of myself. it was my birthday, ran down the stairs, moderated the debate with my leg on great big splint on a box underneath the table. i was escorted on two football players. [laughter] named buck and tim.

[laughter] broke my ankle, yeah. [laughter] >> the moral of the story is don't read their books. [laughter] >> how about you, judy? be how do you go about -- >> well, i moderated that debate, and i've moderated various primary season debates. both candy and gwen have said you drive yourself crazy because you feel like you need to know everything. you go back and read everything, and you try to think, okay, what's important. but it does depend on the format of the debate. it's different where you're a solo moderator versus where you are calling on citizens to ask their questions versus a debate where you're sharing some of the responsibility. but it is so much, it is so much harder than what we do. we love our work, and, you know, we don't go around complaining. it's hard. you love doing it. i mean, if you love being a journalist, you love asking politicians, and what could be more important, i mean, what, what format, what forum is more

important than the two men who are vying to be president of the united states? that is a huge responsibility. so, you know, that's why they not only pick people who won't be intimidated, they pick people with great judgment. >> i moderated a discussion or a debate between justice scalia and justice breyer once, and i prepared about 25, 30 questions similarly -- >> and they ignored you, didn't they? >> i got two questions in that hour and a half. [laughter] but, you know, they were -- it's a little bit like your observation, candy, they were going in this a way that the audience would rather have listened to them than my questions, i'm sure. so it's a judgment call, i think, in those instances where you let them go if it's, if they're on topic and talking about things -- >> sometimes when they're off topic. i thought that whole exchange about what's in your bank account and have you looked, i thought, well, yours is bigger than mine, my brain is going -- >> oh! [laughter] >> okay.

moving along. >> it wasn't until i watched that later that i saw the president pause and smile and say, i gotta say it, he came armed with that. >> absolutely. absolutely, he did. >> what were your observations about last night's debate and -- >> glad it's over. happy that the debate season is over. i thought, you know, it was a good debate. it was a good debate. if you care about these issues, a lot of things didn't come up, a lot of things did. i thought it would have been nice to hear about something other than most of the debate being about the middle east or the greater middle east. but, on the other hand, you know, they came with a goal in mind, both of them. and in the same way that the president didn't show up at the first one, he had to show up at this one, and he had to make the case for leadership and credibility, and that's what these debates really, in the end, are all about. and the topic is beside the point. so i think taken as a group, those debates did exactly that. you got to learn a lot more about these two men and how they

interact side by side. there's no other way, you know, when i shook hands at the end last night, when are they going to see each other again voluntarily? [laughter] >> there's a picnic they've got. >> yeah, right. >> i was reminded again of how much, how much it has benefited governor romney to have participated in those 19 debates plus eight forums during the republican primaries. i mean, he clearly has benefited from that. i mean, he comes across as somebody who's comfortable in the debate format. the president, on the other hand, hadn't done it for four years, and i think -- and there's no question that worked to governor romney's benefit in these debates. >> that's an interesting observation. that leads to my next question which is in this campaign what do you think has had more of an impact, the debates or campaign advertising? and as you know going into the campaign season a year ago everyone was talking about the money that's going to be poured into advertising and what kind of impact that could have, how it could influence the outcome.

and there was an escalating spending war going on. do the debates have more of an impact on this or maybe a little bit too early to tell yet, but what's your observation? >> it depends who you're talking about. if you live in about a dozen states, those ads are killing you -- >> meaning there's so many of them. >> it's all you see when you turn on the television. we get a little bit of it here in washington because we're right next door to virginia, and maryland has some big initiatives on the ballot. but if you're living in ohio or colorado or nevada or florida, you want to kill somebody. you want those ads off your tv. [laughter] and it's back to back to back to back. so maybe that's influencing you more. but if you're living in the rest of the country, those debates -- which were very, very well-watched this year -- i think will have a much greater effect on you than advertising because you're simply not seeing advertising. >> isn't there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to advertising? you get inundated with so much,

you tune out. or are they -- they must have studied this somehow, the effectiveness of it, or why would they spend so much money doing it? >> well, i do think that the obama, that just flood of advertising that the obama campaign did directed at governor romney and the whole bain capital scene that they laid people off, that money was sent overseas is and just the entire sort of attack on his business background, there's no question that did damage to governor romney for a period of time. and i think in a way it connects to the debate because people were going around saying, oh, well, you know, the debates, you know, they may not even matter that much this year. people are already making up their minds, they were looking at the polls, and then lo and behold, who would have predicted what happened at the first debate happened. and it did matter, and i would argue the debates do matter. >> i think the first debate mattered most. i think if romney had had a bad debate than sort of the other way around, we would not be

seeing the race we're seeing today. um, i think for the reasons gwen articulated, they do matter in the broad sense. but we also saw movements in these swing states. i always think that this must be diminishing returns at some point where you just think, i'm sorry -- sometimes the same ad is -- i saw the same ad back to back three times. and i thought, really? i mean, do you not want to say who is that for? i'm voting against him. [laughter] just because i'm so angry at hearing that. but they don't, you know, smarter people than me about advertisements, it's like, it's like groundwater. they just want it to be in your consciousness in a way that you don't even know it. i mean, it's a little spooky "clockwork orange" sort of stuff, but i think that they wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't still effective. >> and how much times do you talk to voters -- how many times do you talk to voters, what do you know about these guy, and they begin to repeat to you

unwittingly the script of an ad because it's sunk into their brain. they think it's their idea. >> right. ♪ >> interesting. [laughter] well, we have, gwen and judy, two clips from your convention coverage, historic convention coverage, and there's a memorable exchange with one of your regular panelists, mark shields, that we're going to show. and we also want to show the audience how you both closed out your coverage of the dnc convention in september. so now let's roll those clips, please. >> seen you both have commented on it that this is still very much like a base convention, playing to the constituencies that are already democratic, not to the middle or to the independents or to swing voters. so at what point does he turn the corner?

>> from 7 to 10 it's been nothing but base, but from 10:00 on, they've tried to talk to the -- they've gone back to caressing the erogenous zones of the body politic, and i think this cannot be -- >> all right. we're going to -- >> he's out of control. [laughter] >> and with that, we end our coverage of this final night of the democratic national convention in charlotte. i'm judy woodruff -- >> and i'm gwen ifill. thank you for being with us, good night. >> major funding for the pbs "newshour" has been provided by: [applause] >> yeah. we were so -- >> we did it after both conventions. >> yes. we just wanted it to be over. we had spent two weeks by then in a little, tiny booth with our dearest, closest friends. [laughter]

and we got on the air every night about 6, and we'd get off every night when it was over, which was 11:00 or so, and so it was a lot of time. we're on c-span, i can't say what i was going to say, but things didn't happen because we were trapped in that booth for several hours. and we were happy, and the conventions were very exhausting, but we had a great time. >> they seem so long ago, don't they? >> isn't it amazing? did you have a special sense of accomplishment, the two of you covering them? >> you mean because of the two women? >> gwen and i have been asked about that. we really didn't think about it that way. we like to think we were chosen, and i believe we were chosen because we both have lots of experience, between us, what is it, a couple of hundred years? [laughter] >> wait a second! >> well, for me. for me. >> yeah, right. >> she's only been at this for a few years. but because we've been doing this for a long time, we've covered politics, we love covering politics. we were both very excited to be going to the convention.

and, you know, it is a fascinating campaign. i mean, even back at the point when one candidate was ahead of the other one or somebody was behind, and now it's close, it's been fascinating the whole way. >> and the "newshour" covers conventions in a more exhaustive way than a lot of people do. we're kind of across -- we're between c-span which does a fixed camera on the podium and the cable networks. we have people talking, but we also show a lot of what's happening at the podium. it's kind of a mixed bag. and as a result, we make more of an investment in it. and is judy and i have -- judy was at the "newshour", left, came back, we've been there a while. and it was just a natural evolution for us to do it together. >> well, we know you were chosen on merit, but i would add that you were an inspiration to young women all over the country. >> we'll take that. >> who have similar aspirations. it was great for them to see you. and all of us who watched your coverage. the news media spends millions of dollars on covering the

conventions, but some say now that the conventions really have become more of a staged commercial for the candidate rather than a news event. i'd be interested in your observations about that, and do you think the coverage of conventions is still important, and how has it changed over the years? >> well, i have this really old-fashioned view of conventions. i mean, i believe that it's not asking too much for each political party to get a few days every four years to say to the american people here's what we believe. and, yes, they do it in a much more staged and orchestrated and carefully-scripted way than they used to. the first convention i covered as a local reporter working for a cbs affiliate in atlanta was the 1972 democratic convention in miami when i didn't have a credential. i sneaked in -- this was the night george mcgovern was speaking at, what, 3 a.m., accepting the nomination. i was there to cover the georgia

state delegation which was having its own turmoil over who was going to be seated and who wasn't. so contrast that when it's so unpredictable with today when everything is by the book and down to the minute. i mean, we are given every day at the convention whether it's the republicans or the democrats, they give you a book that tells you by the minute, by the -- practically by the second how long each speaker is going to speak. >> and by the way, they never do it. >> by the way, it doesn't work. but we didn't know clint eastwood was going to talk -- >> that's right. we didn't know. >> and we didn't know bill clinton would be the all-around first place winner of the best convention speech. and even though it's perfectly orchestrated. but the thing is, you know, you watch -- say, let's take the democratic convention. it is, it was, to me, fascinating that in the end that entire convention was, a, about women, as we know, but it was about two states, ohio and michigan. i don't know how many times we

heard about the auto bailout. i mean, just every speaker except for somebody who spoke about social issues mentioned the auto bailout -- >> the nun. >> exactly. [laughter] >> but it was just astonishing. and so what they are saying and how they are presenting themselves is a story. you don't have to say let's open the mic and let them all say whatever they want. i mean, that's why you have people with experience to go, okay, here's why they're doing this. >> we long since gave up on the notion that the nomination is taking place at the convention, so what do you want to know about these people who want to be president? because of the republican convention, because of the collapsed convention because they thought a hurricane was coming and didn't come, but meanwhile they lost a day, there were a couple of scheduling changes which, actually, governor romney's still paying for. he had a wonderful video about his life which told you as much about the romneys and about him and the most flattering way possible that almost no one saw except on pbs.

but nobody saw it who wasn't watching pbs or c-span because it came -- [laughter] because it came on the air before the networks came on. okay, cnn too. so here, so here's the problem though. here was an opportunity to tell you who he was and to describe him. the night that ann romney spoke, that was supposed to be the big night introducing ann romney, his secret weapon. instead they ended with chris christie who was mean and kind of bullying, and therefore, left a different taste in your mouth. >> yeah. >> than was intended for that evening. and they spent some time making up for those miscues. >> yeah. we don't want to suggest that we just sort of put it out there and say here's what they're doing. we're there to look at it and weigh it and compare and contrast and analyze. >> i still think you're going to see three days is just plenty -- >> yeah. i don't think they're going to -- >> i don't think they're going to go back to four days. the democrats voluntarily just decided we're going to do three.

>> the rnc -- >> it was forced by the weather. >> and i just think it's going to get less and less. >> one of our favorite interviews in the booth was when rick santorum came by, and he decided to, basically, be really honest about what he thought about mitt romney. we're thinking, well, what do you think? the he's like, oh, you know, he's kind of stiff, when i debated him -- and he was just talking like, you know, and we kept say, really? do you want to stay after this speech and say some more? he said, okay, and he just talked. and it was clear after all the republican debates, all the republican primary encounters that the people who ran against mitt romney were not really fond of him still. even at the convention. >> and we had john boehner, speaker john boehner tell us that he may have said -- he said it to us, he said i never read those platforms. [laughter] this is after the -- >> you know, the convention, big deal. i don't read them. you get it all in one page. he said, in fact, he said nobody reads the platform.

>> but we did. [laughter] >> what can we look for in the next two weeks, between now and election day? what are your, what do you anticipate? >> fasten your seat belts. >> yeah, fasten your seat belt. i mean, i think you've seen some of the silly rhetoric that we're going to get for the next two weeks, but more than that what you're not seeing is what's going on, and that is those get out the vote efforts. and those are the most intense ting -- things. and also they're doing something that i don't understand, i mean, thai got these 14-year-olds that can talk to the entire world with a tweet, and they've got this way of having them all talk to the friends in their social network, and so there's a lot of stuff going out there that is just not obvious to the camera's eye at this point, and that's where this election is right now. this is about -- to me, this is always been a base election. this is not, you know, that it always has come down to this, whose base is more excited,

who's going to get their people out. you know, i must say president obama had a storybook turnout you know, election team and election system. i don't know if it's still there because those systems are driven by energy and by passion, and we're not really sure if it's still there. we're not seeing it in the polls yet. so this is about the phone calls, the pick-ups at the, you know, we'll be by and pick you up at 8, mrs. so and so, bring four of your friends. it is down to that. >> and make sure you bring an id to the polls. i think one of the interesting things for us is we look at this purely through the veil of how can we cover it, how can we tell the story, and it is really hard to tell the story that's in hiding. so we follow the candidates, and we want to know where they're going to be, and we gauge what they think is important by where they campaign, the tonight show, the daily show and a couple states in between and mtv. i didn't know people still

watched mtv. [laughter] anyway, the point is -- and we're trying to figure out how do we get to the story that doesn't want to be told. and that's the hard part. we were having that discussion today at the "newshour", how do you get inside this voter turnout operation? how do you figure out how people are using technology to get to voters? what are we missing? and that's going to be, to me, the thing that -- there's going to be some sort of crazy thing that comes out of the blue that throws everybody off, and they're going to yell at each other for a couple days. all those distractions will happen. donald trump will say something. [laughter] but what's really going to drive the turnout and the outcome, i really do agree it's the base. it's who's more excited and who's more depressed, and now that the republicans see the potential they could actually take this, they're more excited. >> one of the things we can keep on doing and that all of us, i mean, all three of us have done it, and to the extent we can, we will do it between now and election day, and that's talk to voters. i mean, if we can -- i am going to be out the last weekend before the election.

to me, that's the point of contact. if you can get voters to talk to you about what they're thinking, if you talk to enough voters, i guarantee you, you will get a sense of what's going to happen in this election. granted, it needs to be in an area where there's a variety of views, but you will pick up from the dielard democrats and diehard republicans, there's an honesty there, and that will come through. >> if you go online, you'll see a great story that judy did yesterday, aired last night on the "newshour", about voters in florida along the vaunted i-4 corridor, and she's talking to motorcycle, you know, motorcycle bikers, she's talking to people at sun city who are standing in long lines in shorts and white sneakers to go see a candidate. but in the end you talk to them, and they're speaking in real ways that strategists and pundits and we don't. and we need -- if we're smart, we listen. >> and i still get, i will tell you, i confess, on election night i get this tingle up and down my back, and i get teary

when i think about we're one of the very few places on the planet where we can change our leadership without firing a gun or without a drop of blood. and it still, as many years as i've been doing it, i still get so excited by that. >> it's amazing. [applause] >> and i would agree, it's going to be who's most motivated to get out the vote. and it's interesting, gwen, in the immediate aftermath i'm sure the defeated candidates weren't too thrilled, but they seem more enthused now that the race is close. it's going to be very interesting to watch what happens over the next couple weeks. and now i'd like to take some questions from the audience for our distinguished panel, sort of our own town hall. >> we actually have to talk the voters? [laughter] >> this is our own town hall version of the program. and as those from the audience

approach the microphones to ask any questions they might have, i'll ask you if all three of you have twitter handles and has the social media changed, affected the way you cover politics? and how politics is covered -- [laughter] >> we've decided, i found out ahead of time, i have a twitter account, um, and i have on occasion tweeted. but i feel like you're, like 140 characters away from being fired most of the time. [laughter] and, you know, it just seems dangerous. [laughter] and so i look at it, and i follow the conversation, but i am pretty darn cautious about the sorts of things. gwen is ms. tweet. >> i do tweet, but i'm not as, um, as arch as candy because that would get you in trouble, that's true. twitter is one of those things, i use it as a news-gathering tool. if you follow the right people

and spread your following out, if people say rude and nasty things to you -- as they will -- you block them. you just stop following them. no reason to get bended in your life, you know? life is tough. so i find it useful, i find it as a way -- i find out things from twitter i wouldn't otherwise know, it takes me to stories i wouldn't otherwise read. so it's useful to me. >> as candy described, the campaigns are using it bigtime now. >> yeah. >> all the social media. >> well, we're going to take some questions from the audience, and as we do i would just, though, suggest to our panelists if you get up and start circling each other, i'm going to call the sergeant at arms to separate you. [laughter] yes, please, would you identify yourself? >> sure. my name is emily whiting, i've been a fan for a long time, and i appreciate what you're doing for women in journalism. my question for you is i'm curious based on your experience what you think needs to happen in contemporary society in the

u.s. before a woman can be elected president? >> someone's got to come up with a campaign that wins. i'm not sure if it's a question of contemporary society. i think hillary clinton came remarkably close last time because she ran a good campaign right up until the time she did not. [laughter] there's always going to be something that's a block. none of us, i don't think, can say this time four year ago or maybe, okay, five years ago that we thought barack obama would be the first african-american president. it just didn't seem like society was ready for it. um, society is ready for the case to be made, and so it could happen if it's the right candidate running the right campaign. i don't see any reason why we wouldn't see a woman president, you know? >> it could happen in 2016. it could happen very soon. >> i think both conventions demonstrated, you know, a real depth of potential women candidates. it's one of the things that came

out of the conventions this year, i thought, from both parties. yes, please. >> tracy powell with the pointer institute. i've talked to members of the commission and have been told, um, one of the problems with the journalist moderators is that they want to keep trying to ply their trade. so my question is, you know -- well, i'm glad that you're trying to ply your trade because i think voters want advocates. and i wonder, first, do you see yourselves as advocates for the voters and, second, do you see yourselves -- or do you see the commission or the campaigns trying to get rid of the problem of the journalists trying to ply their trades? >> well, you know, i don't know, you know? i commit acts of journalism every day -- [laughter] and it's sort of natural to me, so i don't think you knock the

journalist out of the -- i mean, i think they want journalists. no, i don't -- listen, the commission was great to me, and i never felt smooshed by the commission, i never felt like they didn't want me to, you know, go out and moderate as, you know, in the, you know, in the broad parameters of what they gave it. so i don't have at all any problem with the way, you know, the commission did this. and i, look, i'm -- do i consider myself an advocate for voters? i consider myself, you know, a, incredibly privileged to do, have this what was called the front row seat in history, to have seen what i have seen. and i feel an absolute commitment to share what i see and to share what i learn with whoever is willing to listen in as honest a way as i can. now, applying that to moderator,

you know, to me you just, you know, bob's a journalist, jim lehrer's a journalist, i'm a journalist, martha's a journalist. so they had four journalists who, i think, wrought themselves to the plate -- brought themselves to the plate. >> that's true. >> i don't think we all went there to be something. we went there to be who we were and have a debate. so i didn't feel that they're trying to make journalists go away. >> and it's not advocacy per se, but it is doing what we do every day which is providing clarity, asking questions and hoping for, pressing for answers. it's just a different format for doing that. >> yes, sir. >> edward rohner from washington. this year we've seen the rise of the fact checker and increasing misstatements in both advertising and by the candidates. it seems that that's been on an uptick for a long time, and i

wonder, the thought occurs that this might be because the people in each candidate's camp don't know each other, don't socialize with each other, don't bounce ideas off each other, and so they say things that had they been hanging out in the bar or at a dinner party with each other, they would have tried it out before it went public. might it be a good idea for a group like a bipartisan policy center and the newseum to sponsor get togethers of a social nature between, say, members of the heritage foundation and their fan base and the center for american progress? >> i wish a beer could solve it. [laughter] i think you underestimate how partisan and polarized things are if you think that socialization, that people wouldn't say things if they just knew each other. >> no, i'm not -- i think a lot of the mistakes, misstatements are -- >> misunderstanding? >> literally ignorance of --

they don't look at things the way the other guys do, and they don't understand the way the other guys look at things. >> let me tell you what i actually think you have a point in this way, i think where politics runs into this fierce kind of partisanship is when motivation is ascribed to a position. these people feel this way because they hate old people, and that's why they feel that way. these people feel that way because, you know, they, they're socialists. and so once people begin to ascribe motivations to each other, that's when the fierce partisanship comes in. i did a piece one time with senator leahy, a liberal democrat from vermont, senator lugar, the outgoing but conservative senator from indiana. they came to the senate roughly the same time, at least in the same decade. they were both junior members op the agriculture -- on the agriculture committee.

they met -- you know, shaped in a horseshoe when they're in those committees, so they literally were looking right at each other, and the way they'd tell the story is they'd say, mr. chairman, what was that? and the chairman was just shut them up, and nobody cared, so they kind of bonded over that. they did, you know, lots of agriculture legislation, lots of other, different kinds of legislation together over 30 years, i think, of their time together. they have children whose homes back up against each other in the same neighborhood in virginia, and they would find themselves in this playground in that neighborhood with their grandchildren, and they called it the bipartisan playground. [laughter] they, they do not look at each other and think the other one is evil. when you are standing on the sidelines watching your son play soccer on the same team as the other guy's son, you learn to know that he's not evil, that he has a different opinion that you

may vociferously disagree with. i think gwen's perfectly right, i that had huge, deep differences that are very hard to, you know, just get together over a beer. but the frosty and the -- ferocity and the viciousness, i think, that we sometimes see has to do with the fact that they don't hang out with each other anymore. they look at each other as kind of, you know, like evil people who don't, you know, share their same values. >> and it's, and that's a wonderful story, candy, because it is true, they just don't know each other. when i first came to washington and covered the jimmy carter white house in 1977, we talk about it today, we used to go out, and you would go to a dinner or an event, there were republicans and democrats who would socialize together, they knew each other. over the years we have gotten away from that. members of congress don't bring their families, families don't get to have experiences like the one candy described.

so the other party becomes the other. it's people you don't know. and familiarity does bring, i think, the opportunity for people to work together and work on problems. doesn't mean you're suddenly going to have "kumbaya" and drop your principles, and you're suddenly going to work everything out, but at least you can have a conversation, and the other side isn't, you know, evil incarnate. >> i would just say that's true when we talk about congress. when we talk about campaigns, the fact checkers you talk about say this is wrong, and the candidate continues to say it anyway. they know it's wrong. they meant to say it wrong, and they don't really care if you call them on it. they just keep doing it. i think the rise of fact checking's a wonderful thing. but it puts to us in on the voter and on -- the onus on the voter and the consumer of the information to decide whether this person hose saying something over and over again is not true, what is your judgment about that individual? i guess what i meant by a beer

won't solve it is i don't think they're going to stop making inaccurate statements because they like the other guy. because the fact is they're doing it with a fore thought. >> it's two different things. we're talking about gridlock in washington, but you're right, on the campaign trail it's all about messaging, framing the argument. and if that means you're going to exaggerate or embellish or a lot worse, distort, you're going to keep on doing it if you have to. >> has there been an increase in distortions since the rise of fact checkers, or has it always -- >> we just know about them, is all. we just know about them. distortions were probably always there, and we just didn't know. >> yes. >> hi. first of all, thank you to the three of you for doing such a really amazing job covering these debates and the campaign thus far. i'd also like to add martha rad at to your ranks as doing a phenomenal job with the vice presidential debate. understanding that first and foremost the three of you are journalists, i would also like to ask if you felt that your

role as a woman, especially in light of women's roles in this campaign in terms of the war on women or binders full of women or just the statistical significance of half the country being female, if you as a woman and as a moderator and as a journalist thought that that was an important angle or an especially important to shed some light on women's issues during this campaign and especially during the debates? >> um, i've been asked this a lot since and before the debate, and i say, you know, here's the thing. every day of my life i have gotten up female. so -- [laughter] i don't know what i, you know, i don't know what i feel, um, and how much of how i approach things is because i'm female, or is it because i'm from the midwest and had a

certain set of experiences, or is it because i have, you know, a son who's in this business and, therefore, i'm familiar with that? i mean, i think we all bring whether it's jim lehrer or bob schieffer or martha raddatz or me, all of us have had different experiences, and we're the sum total of that. to me, it's about diversity of everything. and certainly female is part of that. i, i don't -- people say, well, you know, we've got to talk about reproductive issues, and i'm thinking, since when isn't it a man's issue? since when don't men care about reproductive issues of the women they love, their daughters or their wives, whatever? so, yes, i think it's important that women are out there asking the questions, but i don't think that i am different from jim lehrer because i'm a woman and a man. i'm different from jim lehrer because we've had different experiences, and we come at the table differently. i underestimated the impact of

being a -- and i have to tell you, i didn't know about the 20 years since a woman had moderated a presidential debate because, first of all, i had watched, you know, gwen had been out there, she did two debates in a row, you know, the vice presidential -- >> yeah. >> so i wasn't computing vice president, president. i knew judy had done a debate. so i didn't really realize it had been that long. it was not until i started young women literally grabbing me on the street going i am so excited to see a woman up there. and then i would get older women going, you go. this is great. [laughter] this just really means so much. and so i thought, you know, if young women come away from this debate or come away from this evening or come away from judy and gwen's show and think i can do anything, and if older women can come away thinking, damn, i am still peaking, well, then i am so on with that. [laughter] you know? [applause]

i am for it. but i don't think it's split so simply as just your gender. >> i would just add this one thing. i completely agree with candy, i call it the veil of experience, whatever it is we are. when i moderated my first vice presidential debate, i remember thinking the way we all do, what can i ask that no one else is going to ask? what question can i bring up? and i know my veil of experience means i'm an african-american woman, so how do you like that? you get the woman thing, the african-american thing, the short hair thing, you get it all. so i'm thinking what can i bring to this debate that i know nobody else would think to ask and that would shed some light on these individuals, and i thought i'll ask about -- i came across a statistic that showed that african-american women, heterosexual women had a higher increase in aids, in hiv infection than any other group. and i thought, okay, i'll ask them what would they do about? that's a statistic that might not have caught anybody else's

ear, so i asked dick cheney and john edwards, and dick cheney said, really? [laughter] and john edwards, by the way, i preface this by saying i want to talk about aids, but not aids in africa. i said i want to talk about aids here at home, and john edwards replied by asking about aids in africa, talking about aids in africa. he didn't hear what i had said because he came prepared thinking, ah, she's going to ask me about aids in africa, black woman, and he didn't -- he came prepared with an answer that he gave anyway. now, i could have been depressed that neither of them answered the question, but years later people still come up to me and say it was so interesting that neither of them had the answer to that question. that this was not a priority for either of these candidates. i learned so much that way. so sometimes a nonanswer i take solace in this, is an answer. >> you get more nonanswers than answers. >> might as well. >> so we love those nonanswers. [laughter] >> we have time for two more questions.

>> good evening. my name is phyllis cunningham, i'm with the joint center for political and economic studies. my question is these days you're hearing so much about the polls. every day there's a new poll out, one thing saying one thing -- >> tell us about it. >> and i'm wondering in your opinion what impact do you think they have, and which ones you put stock in, if any. >> very good question. >> well, first of all, there are way too many of them. there are zillions of them, and we are swimming in polls, and we hate them, but we can't live without them. we seem to be, i mean, i find myself drawn to the polling web sites several times a day, and i don't like that because i think it begins to drive everything about your understanding and your concept of what's happening in the race. and on the one hand, polls as a whole you can talk about which polls are better than other polls and which methodology's better than another. as a whole, they do tell you something about what's happening

in that contest, and we do know that. so they deserve our attention. but should they be driving so much of the conversation? i don't think so. having said that, do i think there's anything we can do about it? no. i think we just have to be judicious in our use of them. for example, i know in the "newshour" we try to, we talk about the polls when it's appropriate, but it doesn't drive our constant coverage. >> do you think it drives turnout? >> but it does drive what the campaigns do. and for that reason we want to understand why they are going to this state, not that state because they're reading the polls. david plouffe, one of the president's top advisers apparently told someone, you know, i'm waiting for the outback steakhouse poll next because there are so many polls that we cannot judge their credibility. >> he saw that on twitter, that's why twitter's really useful. [laughter] >> actually, i did. [laughter] but what's interesting about the polls if

you use them correctly, what they tell you -- not the horse race so much, but who's speaking and why, why the president -- who the president's losing ground, not just that he's losing ground, but who is he targeting, why is he targeting women, why are we seeing ads the way we're seeing them, why are they talking to this group and how they're speaking to them. we can say that the way mitt romney behaved last night which he said, you know, i agree with the president, and he was very mild. if that wasn't poll-driven, i'll eat my hat. and that's important for us to know as well. but we have to kind of be careful about the ones we consume. >> i think the top numbers are less valuable, as gwen says, than the inside numbers. why has this number dropped? oh, because women think that mitt romney is too eager to go to war, and then you get a debate such as we saw last night which is, you know, and again, i agree -- i hate the polls because i feel like they just suck the surprise out of

everything. and it's like no fun, you know? [laughter] but they, the campaigns have them. and this is what they are driven by. and so it's important to know, as gwen says, what they're doing with them. and it does tell you, um, you know, loads about what messages are having resonance. but i agree with you now, of course, the poll that's the most reliable is the cn n/orc poll. [laughter] but having said that, there are loads of polls. real clear politics that they average the polls, and cnn does this as well where they throw out the highest one and the lowest one, and they average it all up, and that'll give you an idea. but, you know, i think as a viewer, you know, i'm not sure they mean much to you except for the interpretation as it applies to what the campaign's doing. >> right. >> thank you. >> last question. >> hi, my name's mark. i had a question that's maybe a little bit off from actually

talking about the horse race but more specific to the skill sets that you describe that make for a good moderator of a debate. and i think so often when we talk about, journalists talk about the insightful questions they ask, we never focus on the other side of that coin which is the listening aspect of it. and i'm always amazed at, candy, your ability to ask good questions, meanwhile, you're listening and responding on the spot, in the moment as you described before. so i was wondering for the three of you as being pros and journalists, what, what technique or intentionality is there behind your listening when you're both moderating a debate or a high-stakes forum like that or just simply interviewing -- >> that's a really good question. >> that's a smart question. >> to me, there's nothing more important, i don't care about time or, there's nothing more important than listening. there's people in your ear telling you how many more minutes they have and who's, what's, you know -- >> who you're going -- >> who's coming next and when the commercial's coming and this

is, you know, obviously no memories in the presidential and -- commercials in the presidential and vice presidential debates, but there is a lot going on, and you can be, you know, sometimes i get really angry because a guy's going and so, candy, that's why today i'm going to -- and someone's going, okay, when he's finished, someone's talking in your ear, it's almost like you're crazy. [laughter] and so -- and sometimes i will flip it out of my ear because i'm trying to, you know, listen to what's being said because if you are not listening to the answer, you're not having a conversation. >> you're not. >> i wish i'd known this before we started tonight. [laughter] >> well -- >> but i but just going to say, you prize directors, the folks that often give you or the producer who do it briefly. and they know when to come in. they come in right before, right after you -- usually the best time for me is right after you finished a question, before somebody -- >> you're saying that they're sitting right there. our producer is sitting there -- >> our deputy executive

producer, kathleen mccleary who is sitting right there. but kathleen knows how to do it. >> the truth is the thing that makes you listen is fear, complete terror -- >> that you're going to miss something. >> that the guy will just have admitted to killing his wife while you were thinking how much time is left. [laughter] and it's true, that you will -- and there's never a worse moment than that sinking feeling that someone just said something, and you don't know what it was. you missed the last three words, and you have to -- >> you can't say, what? >> sometimes you can tell it's happened. and they start looking at their papers because all of a sudden you've lost your train of thought. but it is a -- the reason why we all said what a great question, it's a real special skill which is learned and acquired. you can tell the different when you watch people do interviews who aren't listening to the answers, who are just plowing ahead and looking at the next thing on the list, and that's not the person you want to be. it's not the interviewer, it's not the husband or wife you want to be. you want to be able to always be

listening and then integrate that into the next part of the question. it's something which i don't, i never feel comfortable i've gotten it down. i think it's a continual learning edge pierce. >> i'm -- experience. >> i'm curious, are you a journalist? or do you want to be a journalist? >> [inaudible] >> good, good for you. >> what'd we just say? [laughter] >> were you listening? [laughter] >> i think the other thing that, and i don't know what you all do, but i rarely will write down my questions. i'll write down a subject matter, like don't forget to ask him about the auto bailout, or don't forget to ask him this. but if i -- if you get so wedded to that next question, you're just not paying attention to it. it's a little, um, i do sometimes think what if i run out of questions, but then you say, hey, thanks very much. [laughter] >> thanks for stopping by. >> questions from the audience, i haven't had a question for 20 minutes. >> exactly. so, you know, i mean, people do it in different ways, but i think if you, an interview is

not i'm, here's my eight questions. an interview is here's what we want to talk about, let's saw a conversation. >> -- let's have a conversation. >> well, thank you all very, very much for being with us this evening. [applause] i really want, i really want to thank you for all you're doing to keep our citizens informed and engaged. as thomas jefferson said, the best way to preserve our liberties is to have an informed citizenry. and the three of you have done a superb job of that throughout your careers. we're just very pleased and honored that you're with us here tonight. thanks for all you do. >> thank you very much. >> great fun. [applause] >> well, shortly we plan to return to live coverage of the chamber of commerce's legal reform summit, remarks coming up from the head of the consumer products safety commission nancy

nord here in just a few minutes live on c-span2. road to the white house coverage continues on c-span. right now vice presidential candidate paul ryan just starting a campaign stop at cleveland state university in the ohio talking about the economy and jobs to supporters. it's live, as i said, right now on c-span. and president obama is off on a two-day, eight-state tour including six battleground states, and at 4:55 eastern the president will be speaking to supporters at a rally in city park in denver, colorado. live coverage this afternoon, again, at 4:55 eastern. that will be on c-span. and, again, we're back to the chamber of commerce shortly for an all-day summit on legal reform and remarks from the head of the consumer products safety commission. right now, though, rudy giuliani, the former new york city mayor, was the keynote speaker of the forum earlier today. >> thank you very, very much, tom. i'm glad that i could make it here. i had to get myself out of bed. i've been in bed since the

yankees lost. [laughter] trying to recover. i'm in a state of total depression. and i may soon need the help of a psychiatrist, i'm not sure. [laughter] this time of year is reserved for me to be at yankee stadium, not give talks like this, so it's really hard. [laughter] but i have, as tom said, i've been a mayor and now i'm a partner at a law firm, and i had a security consulting firm, and i ran coal mines, and i've done a lot of things in my life, but the thing i probably enjoyed the most was being the united states attorney in the southern district of new york and can being an assistant u.s. attorney because it gives you a chance to do justice. i mean, it gives you a chance to do only what's right, and, of course, you look back on those years as probably your best, your best years. so i really admire what the chamber does for legal reform. because our legal system needs checks and balances on it to make sure that it's equitable and that it's fair. and i also appreciate

tremendously all the work you've done on tort reform. as the mayor of new york city, i was in charge of a hospital system that's the second largest public hospital system in the country. the new york city health and hospitals corporation. we owned 17 hospitals, 11 acute care hospitals. and, therefore, new york city insures all of them. we're self-insured for all of their problems. you know what my tort bill was almost every year? $300 million. for my hospitals. about $600 million for my city, but $300 million for my hospitals. because of all the malpractice lawsuits. i would have to say without even worrying about being contradicted that half of that and more was just absolutely phony claims because we have a tort system in new york that is completely unfair, completely

biased. and when i thought about that 300 million, you know, to me what that meant was it cost me about $30 or $40 million to build a school. so you think about how many schools i could have built if i didn't have to pay out even half of that $300 million or how much i could have done in tax relief so that businesses could grow or how much i could have done to make my police department or fire department even better. i mean, incredible amounts of wasted money. because when a jury in new york sees new york city as the defendant, they forget that they're really the defendant. that they're paying out their money, and they pay out money in huge quantities. so i worked tirelessly for tort reform in new york. i would illustrate all of our worst cases. i'll tell you our worst one before i talk about the election. this young man who was 28 years old running along the streets of new york city tripped in a

pothole, probably that pothole was there, my predecessor probably put it there. [laughter] probably not me. i'm learning from president obama how you blame everything -- [laughter] on your predecessor. i didn't know that when i was the mayor, but that is really very convenient. and he became paralyzed. which, of course, is tragic, right? he became paralyzed. and he brought a lawsuit against new york city, and he recovered $70 million from the jury. now, let me tell you the rest of the facts. the reason that he was running, he was running out of a subway station. the reason he was running out of the subway station is he had just hit a man over the head, stole his wallet and run away, and the police were chasing him. in the course of being chased by the police, he tripped ask and became paralyzed -- and became paralyzed. he was sentenced to jail for 20 years, so he was, obviously, he was obviously the richest

1% --er in sing sing pretty. we finally got that reduced after battling in the court of appeals to $4 million which still made him the richest prisoner in sing sing. this is how absurd our legal system is in new york. and because of the hold that the trial lawyers have on the democrats on our state legislature and a few selected republicans, we can't do the tort reform that you've been able to accomplish in so many states. my law firm has big offices in texas. i've seen all the wonderful things that have happened in texas from tort reform, how the number of doctors there has increased by 15, 20%, the cost of health care has actually gone down. so you keep at it, and if you ever need an ally to tell you about -- i mean, i've got about 20 horror stories like the one i just told you about ridiculous amounts of money that new york city had to pay out for claims that were totally frivolous and did nothing to improve my

hospitals. all they did was make my doctors paranoid that every single decision they made was going to get second guessed and made them practice much worse medicine than they would have practiced if they could just, you know, act normally. so we're in the middle of an election, did you know that? [laughter] and this is a really, it's really interesting and all that. i describe this as a fork in the road election. now, this is a fork in the road which on november 6th we're going to do a little differently than my biggest hero and my most famous philosopher, owe -- yogi berra. you know how he describes a fork in the road? if you come to a fork in the road, take it. [laughter] well, we're going to come to a fork in the road on november 6th, and we are going to take it in the one direction or another. and i can't think of a time -- not even 1980 -- where the country will be very different a year from now depending on the

choice we make on november 6th. it could be a different country a year from now one way or the other depending on whatever side you're on, what you can't escape is certainly with regard the our domestic policy, our economy, our health care, our energy policy this country is going to be headed in one of two diametrically opposed directions. so let's look at, let's look at the -- i'm going to give a talk later on taxes and what's going on with regard to tax reform, but just look at taxes. if we elect or reelect president obama, we know the direction he's going to be pushing in, the direction he's going to be pushing in is to raise taxes on the top percentage, whatever that percentage he decides is going to be, probably 250 or more. the reality is that's not going to get him any money. so he's going to have to, he's going to have to raise taxes on a much larger percentage of americans if he really wants to

get deficit reduction out of, out of raising taxes. a president romney will go in this exactly the opposite direction. now, how do i feel about that? when i became mayor of new york city, i had a city that had a deficit of about $3 billion. we had 10.5% unemployment, we had 1.1 million people on welfare. and we were coming to a what was described, and it's probably one of the reasons i got elected. i got elected because our economy was horrible, and we had just had 2,000 murders in the, in the two years before i ran for mayor. so i got elected as the first republican in 25 years and the first one to remain a republican in 50. ..

>> my predecessor told him how to straighten out the economy. the commission did report after the election a month after, while i was getting ready to get sworn in. he presented me with their report. here was their report. if you close that the load in 10, we raise taxes in new york city from that means 40 different taxes you can raise.

an endless number of taxes. i have a had a little ceremony. people presented to me differently and are they handed me the report. i knew it was in the report. i looked at it quickly. and they sent me some of what he wanted to do with the report? this is how my tenure began to yours little garbage bellerive there, here's what i'm going to do the report. [laughter] i tossed it in a garbage pale in front of the press. i said that is where it belongs because this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever seen. the city that people are moving out of because taxes are too high. now, you want a raise taxes again, which means more people move will move out, which means two years from now, i will have to raise taxes again. this has been going on for 30 years. the endless cycle of raising taxes. i'm going to do it differently.

i'm going to cut spending by 10%. and then i'm going to take some of that savings and put it into lowering taxes. the first year i can't lower taxes very much, i'm going to do something. to the first drive over them about 2%. i was really embarrassed about it because i wanted to reduce taxes even more. my deputy mayor, who is also a lawyer and accountant and tax manager, he congratulated me and said, you just pass the biggest tax cut in the history of new york city. it was a closely little $70 million. and i said, peter, this is ridiculous. and he said, you know why it is the biggest in new york city history? there has never been a tax cut in the history of new york city government. it's the first time it has happened. every single mayor in the past, including republicans, had always raise taxes. i didn't been for eight years. ultimately, we got some really big tax cuts and ended up being three or $4 billion for tax

cuts. we were collecting more revenue is because it energize the economy. they took money out of waisted pocket of the city and put it in the hands of people who actually will spend money on a productive and sensible way to produce jobs for it it wasn't the only thing the turnaround the economy of new york city. but here is the difference. it started with 10.5%. i left with 5.5% unemployment. i started with 1.1 million people on welfare, elected 10,500,000 people on welfare. i started with the city with a population of 7.5 million, and i went with the city of 8.1 million people. a lot of that has to do with the fact that we energize the private sector. that is the difference of what is going to happen with taxes, depending on the choice of the american people make on

november 6. they are either going to be fighting a battle next year about how high is president must raise our taxes, president obama. i don't turkey raises taxes on the rich or poor, the poor don't pay taxes, but the richer the middle class -- wherever he were every raises taxes, it is too much money being given to a government that doesn't know how to spend money. what the government needs is what ronald reagan did, is to be put on a diet. if romney gets elected, that is the debate we will have. if obama gets elected, it will be how high the taxes go. though. if romney gets elected, the debate will be how low can we keep taxes and the second part we need, how can we reform the tax system. how can we either go to a flat tax or at least flatten our taxes so that we end up with one or two rates and end up with fewer deductions, fewer

exceptions, put that money into a lower rate. i think the governor romney is absolutely right. you don't list all of those now. he could not possibly know all those now. in one case from the direction will be how we increase revenues to the government or in the other case, the direction will be how we at least keep revenues where they are and see if we can reduce a little bit. and then where do we find a reduction in spending. that is a very exciting. max time to go through. that is what i went through when i worked for president reagan as an associate attorney general. president reagan, as you know, even with a democratic house of representatives was able to do a massive tax cut come at the same time, he cut spending. we put all of these agencies here on strict austerity.

believe me, we didn't like it. but after about six or seven months of discipline like that, we really started to find the justice department actually is not the most efficient organization in the world. it actually does waste money. there are places that you can save. that kind of discipline in our economy will mean tremendous economic growth next year. that is one of the major difference differences with the american people have to decide on november 6. health care, of course, you know there are two different directions of health care. president obama, if he is elected, obamacare becomes institutionalized from the law of the land,. >> you can see all of rudy giuliani's remarks in the c-span video library. back to live coverage of the chamber of commerce we meeting.

>> one of the biggest regulatory agencies is a consumer product safety issue. it covers more than 15,000 consumer products ranging from baby cribs to all-terrain vehicles. to discuss developments, we are really pleased to have a member of the commission, nancy, who is here with us. as chair she was charged with implementing the landmark consumer product safety improvement act of 2008. please join me in welcoming the commissioner. [applause] >> thank you so much, lisa. i am just so pleased to be here after testifying before congress a number of times.

a number of times before the 2000 transwitch. it is very nice to be in a friendly audience. i see a number of people here that i recognize and i want to acknowledge reticular sherry. sheri has let the consumer product safety commission when she was the general counsel for the safety of products commission. i want to talk about regulatory issues. in particular, regulatory reform from the perspective of a regulator and how will we do impacts global competitiveness. when i make a presentation, i generally do not like to read from prepared text. but i will make an exception here because this is important and i want to make sure that i

get the concept down correctly. we know what it will take for america to win the future. we need to make america the best place on earth to do business. a key responsibility of government is breaking down barriers that stand in the way of your success. some of the barriers we are trying to remove our outdated. if there are rules that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix it. it sounds great, doesn't it? i wish those were my words are the bad is something president obama said to the u.s. chamber of commerce when he spoke your just a year ago.

so what i would like to do during my time with you today is give you a brief case study of how one agency, the cpsc, is doing in regards to how president obama spoke to you about it, let me give you a quick overview to start at about with about the cpsc. we have a very broad regulatory scope where small agencies with only 500 people, 120 million-dollar budgets, but nevertheless, we have a really important mission. it is a mission that i feel really passionately about. all of us are consumers. none of us want our children or our families dealing with unsafe products. so it is an important agency with a very important mission. the agency is made up of five commissioners, three democrats,

two republicans. however, a year ago, one of my colleagues, commissioner morris, was hired in the agency. the passer pastor and has been switch from republicans to democrats. when president obama president obama spoke to you, basically he was describing an executive order that he had put out dealing with regulatory reform. there are two prongs to what his executive order does. the first is directing agencies to do cost-benefit analysis, promulgating regulations. the second is after they have these regulations in place for a while, they go back and look at whether the regulations are really achieving their goals. so with respect to cost-benefit analysis, how are we doing? well, we are in a particular peculiar situation, under our

statute. for one kind of regulation that we issue, products the standard, we are directed by our statute in some instances to do cost-benefit analysis. basically the benefits of product safety standards should bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the standard. for other kinds of regulations, we don't have to go through this analysis, although we are certainly committed to do so. finally, regulations of general applicability issued under the apa, of course, of course we don't do cost-benefit analysis, you don't have to do it. well, just prior to my colleagues leaving the commission and bringing us down to the situation, our agency put

out a regulation that is the most far-reaching in history -- in our four year history. during the consideration of this regulation, and i will talk about it in just a moment, i suggested that we do a cost benefit analysis on this regulation. you would've thought -- well, it was viewed with hostility from my democratic colleagues. that could be a bit of an understatement. one of the commissioners, one of my colleagues read that the cost-benefit analysis is nothing more than paralysis by analysis. and so that we would do it over my dead body. so that gives you a sense of how

my colleagues view cost benefit analysis, even the chairman of the agency as recently as this past summer testified before congress that for those regulations that were directed by statute to do it, she would like the congress to amend the statutes, remove that requirement, because it is too burdensome. okay, the second prong of the executive order on regulatory reform is to go back to a retrospective review. regulations have been in place for a while. we are not doing cost-benefit analysis, how are we doing on this second prong? well, my colleagues and i offered erector respective review plan

a plan on regular agencies to impose burdens. what was agreed to and ultimately put on as being in place, it's a plan that deals with housekeeping. the only two reviews that we are doing, one deals with animal testing, and basically restate existing policy, and if you are going to do with animal testing, doing his ministry content minimally as possible. the second one repeals a regulation. it has to do with toy cap guns. this had been subdued two years earlier and a in a broader regulation. it really had no impact. so the regulation review was really nothing more than housekeeping.

i would suggest you do the agency has an obligation to do routine housekeeping as a matter of course. that is not retrospect of regulatory review. so basically we are not doing what the president directed us to do as far as cost-benefit analysis and retrospective regulatory review. what is the result of that? how does that show up in a regulation? i mentioned earlier this testing regulation. this is really an intrusive regulation that was put in place without the kind of review that you would expect.

it really pushes the agency into the global supply chain in a way that i believe is really unprecedented. congress told us following all the recalls back in 2008 but they wanted us to do third-party required testing of children's products. all this are consumers. we expected the products we will buy will be saved, and we have had some sort of testing to assure that they are safe. congress decided you are making children's products, that testing has to be done by an independent, outside third-party laboratory. very expensive. we took that mandate and extended it and made it so broad to be really almost crushing. basically what we are requiring

is before you put a product into the marketplace come you have to have every single component in an independent testing laboratory and you have to go through that process again when you make a material change in that product. finally, you have to keep doing it over and over again on a rolling basis periodically. the way that we define this as periodically is that you have to have a high degree of assurance that all the products you make fully comply 100%. now, the cpsc is the only health and safety agency in the entire world that requires this kind of thing. not even the european union's, the creators of this principle

are requiring third-party testing like this. they thought about it and they rejected it. so what does this mean for businesses? because the this rule is going to go into effect in february. i think for large businesses, it is going to see new costs that take away from the bottom line red but for small businesses, this is really serious. our own internal economist told us that this testing role could be expected to increase costs as much as 11% of revenues. since the average profit margin for small businesses under 5%, rule could really be the difference between a successful business and a failing business. there is a trade association out there that represents the micro businesses out there that make

toys. they submitted a list to us of companies that have either closed their doors or have gotten out of the children's product line because of the testing role that we have put into place. we are aware of a number of european toy companies that have just decided to stop selling in the united states. in regards to recordkeeping requirements that can also give you violations, it is really a big deal, that it was done without the kind of analysis that you have every right to expect. okay, that is what we are doing on the regulatory side. what about the enforcement side? we are going to give you two quick examples. i think they illustrate what i see is a really troublesome

trend with respect to the consumer product safety commission. the first deals with the very small business a single entrepreneur who had an idea started a business, he hired a couple of other employees. he took out an sba loan to expand her business. navy carriers that are becoming much more popular these days, unfortunately, an infant died when it was in the swing that she made. they investigated, they found that the product was not implicated in the tragic death of this child. we let her know that. three years ago, we decided that we really wanted to look more carefully at the sling and baby carrier in the sea, which is what we should be doing. internd

marketer, she said, okay, fine. eight months later, the cpsc goes back to her and says, we are sorry. you were right, we were wrong. you can go back into business. well, at that point, it is too late for her. she has had to live or eight months without any sales. she had to close her business and she defaulted on their loans, and a couple of people are out of work because of this. another example that i want to give you, which is happening right now, so i can't get into too many details, but some of

you may have heard that the agency has brought an action against a company called ducky laws. this product is very popular. it is intended for adult use. there are about five different places on this product and in the packaging where there are warnings to keep it out of the hands of children. there is one right here and there is one right here. if you open it up, you'll find several more. however, if these little magnets in the balls, part, they are very powerful and we have little children who have swallowed them and if they come together in the intestines, they create tremendous industries --

injuries. they are about injuries, thankfully no one has died yet. in addition to little kids using them, but teenagers will use them to simulate tong piercings when their moms and dads say that they can have their tongues pierced. and they swallow them. what the agency has done is determined that even though these things are not intended for children and even though there are lots of warnings out there, we are going to ban them. and so we brought an action to them to ban this product. the first time in 12 years. now, this is going to be litigated in front of the doj. at the end of the day, maybe they should be banned. i don't know, i will reserve judgment on that. but what bothers me is that the

start of the proceeding, the agency went to all the customers, the retailers are selling these things, and they said that we think these are dangerous and we want them to pull them off the market. and, of course, this is not a big item for anyone. of course, they did. so while we go through this process to determine whether these should be banned, we have basically shutdown the market and essentially have killed the company. again, i don't know at the end of the day should be banned or not, but i am concerned when an agency kills the market without any due process, i am concerned when the regulatory agency jumps over all the other regulatory options that we have white warnings and packaging changes to say that we are going to ban

the product, and i am concerned that we start regulating products that are being cynically used by their intended audience. because they are being misused by somebody who is not the intended user of the product. that is pretty extraordinary. we haven't done that in the history of our agencies. but it is a trend that i am seeing and i am very concerned about. coming back to where i started, i would like to tell you that at the cpsc, we have really been aggressively heeding the president's call for regulations that improve america's competitiveness. and so the cpsc has been pushing

out regulations that burden business and ultimately cut down on toy says for american consumers. so i do not know what president obama had in mind when he spoke to you all a year ago about outdated and unnecessary regulations. i cannot tell if my colleagues in the agency are just ignoring his words or whether those words were empty to begin with. but i can say that if the cpsc is at all typical of what is happening in other agencies, then i think that we all need to be very concerned. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'm happy to answer questions

[inaudible question] okay, times out. [laughter] >> okay. i was just wondering to what extent you have been consulted by the financial protection bureau that has been established under dodd-frank? not well, obviously, they have a very different jurisdiction. they also have a different makeup is a single administrator like the cpsc. we have not had formal input --

it is remotely different type of regulation and stature. i don't think it is comparable. i'm sorry? >> [inaudible question] i really can't address that now. i know when i was determine, there was a lot of back-and-forth going on. i talked to my counterparts with some frequency. if we can call the next panel to the stage, please, and commissioner, thank you for your

comments and your thoughts. it is a refreshing, pragmatic, andghts. it is a refreshing, pragmatic, and very considerate approach to regulation and we appreciate you sharing those thoughts with us. continuing with the regulation enforcement team, some of the most important policies were developed just a few blocks down the road from here at the department of justice. over the last few years we have seen record-breaking enforcement of statutes like the false claims act. we have discussed other key enforcement issues today, and the moderator of the panel is no stranger to doj. george has more than 10 years

experience as a federal prosecutor. serving at the u.s. attorney's office and as acting attorney general. during his tenure, he worked on several business cases, including the banking scandal. he is currently involved in the global case with papers written about this subject. his paper examines the doj policy. because of the huge uncertainty created by any ongoing doj investigation, the paper recommends changes to the u.s. attorney's manual, when they are no longer investigation.

they will exclude individuals and companies from participation in federal health programs. it is a pretty big situation, and it really has been used to leverage large settlements from the health care industry, something that we think needs to be reformed. with that, we'll turn it over to you. >> thank you very much. thank you, i'm sure, on behalf of the entire panel. to the institute and to the chamber for having us here today. i am particularly bothered to be joining this accomplished group of lawyers today. we will attempt to fill this role as moderator in this discussion. i will begin by introducing them

to my immediate right, as my friend, rob perry, who is a partner at williams and connolly. as all of you know, williams and connolly is a firm of courtroom stars. i can tell you that rob is the star among stars. i have had the privilege of knowing him since he was a young lawyer. he has risen in that august firm to great heights, including working with brendan sullivan on the stephen's case. next to rob is also my friend, david hodges, who is a partner at wilmer hale. david has served his country and the justice department in two different occasions, first as the assistant attorney general in charge of the civil division,

and then as the deputy attorney general, which i hope you will forgive me, a little bit of bias and there are lots of jobs in government in washington, but i don't think there are any tougher jobs than his. david did a great job. he is a key enzyme litigator where he chairs the government and regulatory litigation group at wilmer hale. he deals with a lot of complex business cases and international cases. last but not least, also my friend, i am glad to say, is neil mcbride. who is currently the 59th u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia. a district that in a wide variety of cases has distinguished itself in recent times and has taken on a lot of the responsibility for some of the leading edge prosecution that the united states has brought.

not just in terrorism, but also in white collar crime and other types of cases that are vital to the community that it serves. he was previously the chief counsel and staff director for the senator joseph biden, then senator joe biden, who was at that time chairing the subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee. he has also been a hands-on litigator in private practice with a major firm here in washington doing criminal and civil litigation. and perhaps among the relevant items, perhaps a little bit more relevant here today, neil is also functioning on the business side of things, where he was the general counsel and vice president of the business software alliance. so he has actually been out there and fought the good fight on the business side of things. as you heard, this panel is

meant to address enforcement policy. very briefly, i would just like to try to put that in a little bit of context as we begin this discussion. we are faced today with a severe economic crisis, as we all know. there is not -- there is not a disconnect between the enforcement decisions policies and practices that are made at the justice department, securities and exchange commission, and other enforcement agencies, and what our economic conditions are. put another way, those policy decision practices have real economic consequences. in a country where far too many people can't get a job, and even more who have jobs are lacking in upward mobility because of economic stagnation, we have to ask ourselves when we look at

the impact of enforcement decision making, can't we do better? hopefully in that context, that is what we will address here today. with that, i am going to turn it over to neil to begin the discussion. >> thank you, george. thank you and rob and david as well. it is wonderful to be appearing with you all today. thank you to the chamber for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to share some reflections on this broad topic. the first point i would like to make is that i think many of us, when we think about the interactions between doj and the corporate world, the business community, we have a default to think in terms of the

adversarial relationship with a perceived adversarial relationship in which the doj is hammering companies or businesses or corporations who have alleged to have done something wrong. i think what gets lost in that kind of default is the fact that the justice department, including the eastern district of virginia, where i work, it is often out in front on behalf of companies which are alleged victims of crimes and not simply alleged to have committed a crime. federal prosecutors take seriously the victims of crime have rights and business victims, corporate victims in my view, are no different than individuals who may be the victim of a crime. the impact of this crime on industry is well known. the chamber, along with other industry groups and government agencies, have memorialized very

well be a that george referenced the metric of harm to the industry. it is not just in terms of companies defending themselves against investigations. but one recent study estimated this much is 250 billion yen loss is what u.s. companies would lose in a given year to crime, probably to crime. whether it be that or the loss of intellectual property and so on. the first thought by point i would like to make is to remind as we talk about this context, is to remind us that the justice department has been very active in the habit of vindicating rights on corporate victims, those who have been the victim of crime. just in my district, we have been very active.

last week we announced the indictment against a publicly traded korean company. five of its top executives, who are alleged with a multitier trade secret theft against dupont, seeking its proprietary technology, earlier this year, we indicted a series of foreign websites that are alleged to have been engaged in massive online piracy of movies and music and other forms of content. it conservatively led to the loss of $500 million of u.s. content rights holders as well as smaller mom-and-pop holders of intellectual property. just speaking from my office, we are as likely to bring this action on behalf a big country for business, as we are against a company that is alleged to have committed a crime.

notwithstanding what i have just said, i think there is a perception that i sometimes encounter that somehow the justice department is antibusiness. i really think that is not the case. the united states attorney manual set out in the opening pages of the doj's role in enforcement space is to protect the integrity of our free economic and capital markets and to protect consumers, investors, and business entities that compete only through lawful means. so i think, these are my words, the department's role is one of a referee. albeit many that operate and ensure it level playing field in which companies can compete fairly. where someone cannot rip off your intellectual property or

proprietary business information. it is a reflection of a pillar of our economic system, the companies compete on the values of their ideas and their products and services, and that we ought to turn corners in the marketplace. it is a reflection that when there is fraud or theft or corruption in the marketplace, but that can, in some instances, lead to a race to the bottom with some businesses who feel they may need to cut corners themselves in order to compete on a level playing field. from my perspective, we come in the justice department, are not antibusiness at all. but fraud and theft and those sorts of things are. i agree with george, he has a comment in his paper that talks

about the interest of the business community and the justice department being aligned in terms of criminal malfeasance. it will lead to investor confidence and ultimately a stronger economy. our economists are actually quite aligned in that respect. a final reflection that i will offer is that in our role, if you will, the business community, we are often faced with difficult choices and questions regarding our prosecutorial discretion when it comes to making decisions, which can cover a continuum from undertaking any action to charging individuals or even the company itself. and i do get a sense that some in the business community, and i saw this firsthand when i was in the business community and outside the department.

his decisions were viewed with a lot of trepidation. they were not particularly transparent. i think the other side of the coin is that the department has made great strides in the last decade, and there has been a pretty well-defined framework going back to other deputy attorney general, larry thompson and mark phillips, going back almost a decade in terms of fairly well enumerated ground rules that the department and individual prosecutors consider when undertaking a decision whether to charge a company or not. and i think that those 10 years -- the tenures of the department engaging on these issues has led to a fairly sophisticated understanding amongst parties on what the appropriate outcome is of a particular case. i can say that certainly in my district, a decision as to

whether to charge a company is one that i personally make. it is not something an that an individual prosecutor kind of does on their own. just to finish up. in terms of the factors, which were laid out in deputy general thompson's memo, and are now codified in the u.s. attorney manual, there are nine factors. i'm sure they are well-known to many of you or all of you in the room. there are two in particular that i think are key ones. my office is contemplating the very tough decision as to whether to charge a company. those two issues are voluntary disclosure and remedial steps taken by the company. because i think of all nine are listed, a company truly has control over this once they get wind of some criminality that

may be occurring somewhere in their company. you know, i certainly get, having walked in the shoes of the general counsel, that you represent very large companies with thousands or even tens of thousands of employees. you are hard pressed to find a town in america because of people or semicustom people that doesn't have a jail in it. i think that his point was organizations of that size, there are sometimes people who do things that may be reckless or greedy or stupid or maybe criminal. there is a continuum of wrongdoing and it is obviously our job as prosecutors to try to understand the continuing and distinguish between what is simply a mistake or error or greediness on one hand.

and commodity on the other. >> thank you, david. we will hear from our next guest. those of you who are regulated in one form or another, one of the most powerful tools of the government enforcement arsenal. either on a discretionary or a mandatory basis, spending on crime of conviction. a health care company could not get medicare reimbursement and so forth. david is going to talk to the impact of the exclusion enforcement tool on companies. >> it is very great to be with you and rob. it is great to be with neil mcbride and just listening to your approach comedies issues

reminded me of how much you bring to your job. having an appreciation of the balances in the right set of values that got prosecutorial decisions. it affects the world around you, which is something that is enormously valuable for people to bring in with you. i do think and really have appreciated the opportunity to work with lisa on this issue of exclusion, which is akin to many industries that deal with the federal government. a particular feature of enforcement in the health care fraud arena. it is a tool that is welded by the inspector general of the department of health and human

services as a consequence of either conviction or a plea to a violation of certain program related offenses. the singular importance of exclusion in the entire health care fraud enforcement arena is that it is so extreme of an outcome in terms of the consequences for the company under investigation, that it entirely distorts the negotiation or bargaining process and the litigation process in my experience. i think anybody who has looked at it closely would have to share entire litigation fairer. no company in the pharmaceutical or medical device space can

afford a concrete public threat of exclusion. the consequence of exclusion is dominated by the federal government is annihilation of the company. because of that reality, which cast a shadow over any investigation in the space, everybody knows, basically in the dialogue at a plea agreement in settlement is going to be necessary unless the government can be persuaded not to insist on that kind of disposition, a disposition that will not involve exclusion and the company is motivated to resolve the matter in whatever fashion it can persuade the government to accept that will not involve an exclusionary result. typically the outcome of those negotiations are that the company will be compelled to enter what is called corporate

integrity agreements, which involved detailed compliance plans that are certified and monitored by the inspector general, and those are done with periodic terms, and they vary from company to company. they are quite rigorous. they require that the company is already doing, the inspector general of insist on what is new, and that supervised compliance is what is substituted for exclusion, and the company's logo on. and the government would never want to exclude one of these companies from a federal health care program for the consequences of doing so, the choices that physicians have in terms of what drugs they can prescribe for the beneficiaries of the program, what medical devices they can prescribe are constrained. in general, this enormous

bargaining chips, year over year, we hear the escalating numbers, the record gets that year after year with new numbers largely driven by the numbers that have been extracted in the pharmaceutical industry alone, the new year over year records, the magnitude of the settlement, there is no question that those records, perhaps a home run record eight consecutive record, -- that it has been assisted by certain performance enhancing tools, and i think that one of them is the bargaining of lesions. protect the program against future importable entities.

the courts are depressed because every one of these cases ends up leaving out because no company can try the case to risk a threat down the road of exclusions. they never get to really define and announce the law. and the other thing that exists is a great deal of uncertainty in many of these cases, the company may not believe that is a correct move on the court never has the opportunity to draw those lines and enunciate the law. we have in our paper was actually, i think, a manageable but minor tweak. it will have an enormous benefit to the system. this is the way of making it better. instead of having the corporate integrity agreement company by company in exchange of a massive

settlement deal. state-of-the-art compliance standards that are administered by a agency that would operate in a specific capacity. let's have them certified programs across the board. if a company maintains that it has been in place, in the event they do something wrong and there is a violation that can have an everybody from all the other tools would be there because you have a company that ought to be continuing to participate in the federal health care plan. we think that maximizes a more rational litigation settlement. that is what we have proposed in the paper. the second thing i want to mention is a similar kind of

problem is the issue of implied certification. under any violation of the contract provision that is deemed by somebody in the government to be material to entitlement attainment, if being implied and certified by the company that makes this voice in the united states, they are not promising to comply with those laws specifically, but it is implicitly certified within an undefined range of laws and regulations. by this method, the government on a case-by-case method regulates contract violations into the liquidated damages and the full 9 yards of false claims act exposure. it is, again, you know, you put that together with the fact that

no company can ever take these cases to trial, you end up with a system that is right for the lack of discipline in the bargaining process. i think some definition is needed there. >> thank you, david. rob, as many of you may know red independent of this particular proceeding, rob was involved in the seagram's trial. senator stevens was invited to stand for reelection, was convicted, the justice department acknowledged its own errors. not just because of this, but i

do want to remind people in the context of this discussion, that there are thousands of people in the justice department and hundreds of prosecutors who do their jobs very well and very girly day in and day out. many things of this nature, those are not the things that we care about. we hear about things when they go wrong. i do think it would be an error to assume that the humans case represents the norm of practice by the justice department. nonetheless, the consequences were serious and it could recur, and love is here to talk to us about what did happen and what might be done to prevent recurrence. >> i think that is great. he took the words out of my mouth. i appreciate what he said that

the honor they bring to your job and the good judgment to you and your prosecutors show. i know that david and george comported themselves as well. i'm the one person on this panel that has never been prosecuted prosecutor on this panel. i have been a defense attorney my entire life. i will give you a report on what it feels like in the trenches and i will focus on the highest levels on what happened in the stephen's case. as george said, senator stevens was indicted 90 days before the general election. he was found guilty a days before the general election. he lost his election -- reelection by 1% of the vote. mayor giuliani was talking about obamacare today and that was the 60 seat in the united states senate. the republicans lost it and there was a very compelling argument that obamacare will not be the law of the land today. ..

supported exactly what senator stevens and his wife were saying about how they understood the bills were being handled to the cabinet was at issue would have

supported what they said in stelle the stephenses or mocked for stating something that one of the government's own witnesses said. that was flown back to alaska during opening statements and kept away from us and what he had to say was never disclosed to us. the government has the ability to collect information and all sorts of ways. they can serve grand jury subpoenas. they have very few limits, they can conduct wiretaps. they have to go to a judge to do that but they can conduct wiretaps and they can execute search warrants. they can lie and deceive witnesses if they think it's in the best interest of the government to do so and they can provide benefits to witnesses. i can't do any of those things where i would be in charge myself.

i think there's a great disparity in the amount of information that's provided that the government has and the defense has, and without that information, it becomes very difficult to represent your client and in most cases the information we are supposed to get we do get, but in some cases, the steven's case being the most prominent example, i've been involved in two other cases where they found the brady case said the favorable information has to be disclosed. i commend the suggestion reform about the standard practice when you are being investigated and the government declines to indict that they tell you so. one of the most amazing look-see get from a client when they come to your office and say they're being investigated is when you tell them things go well with this investigation if we do our job well you'll never hear from the government again and in some

and will expire and you will know you were in the clear. i also agree with david alden's paper i think he's a annihilation it is the reality of health to investigation. leverage is just incredible that the government has versus what the company has when they have the ability with one felony conviction to have mandatory exclusion that's just devastating leverage. i would suggest to the discovery reform is another thing we ought to be behind. senator murkowski was senator stevens jr. colleague in the senate has introduced a bill making it mandatory that all favorable evidence not just that the prosecutor believes material kissed all of an untested be

provided in the defense except in cases when the provisions were made for protecting for witness safety or national security for the proposed bill provides for enforcement mechanisms and provides the material be provided in the advance of the trial i think that is a fundamental way that our trials and the process can be more fair in this country. senator stevens, when the case is dismissed he said he hoped when the dust settled could get involved in lobbying for discovery she died before he could do that, was killed in a plane crash. and i guess my final remarks as if it can happen to the united states senator in washington, d.c. none of the most senior i think the most senior republican

in american history, it can happen to you, it can happen to your company is coming and in most cases it doesn't because prosecutors are honorable and show good judgment, but we shouldn't have to rely on just the good judgment. there should be all to make sure that doesn't happen. >> thank you, rob and each of you. i have a few questions in mind but i wonder if any of you have questions for each other before we are launched into that. >> i have a question for you, actually. >> that isn't within the rules. [laughter] >> but i would like to get -- i really thought your paper was terrific and i would like to hear more about it what you think the incentives are that caused the system not to function better now and how your idea takes at. >> thank you, david. i will take just a minute since the chamber did publish this

paper in connection with this panel and i will just try to summarize the issue and a leased an idea about the solution. declaration and the justice department enforcement policy and practice is a term of art, and what it means is we decline to prosecute this case. is there has to be a case or an investigation to begin under current policy whether or not to formally notify the subject of an investigation whether it's an individual or company the case has been declined is permissive. they can produce such a better if it chooses to do so. sometimes will do so if asked but there are reasons not to ask such as letting a file that is laid for a while at the bottom of the prosecutors pile until the statute of limitations that don't take a sleeping dog that

there often are consequences to having an investigation hang over your head for a company or an individual. you'll i'm sure can immediately see what this may be without the articulating. but they do issue a letter and i would say in my own experience representing clients in a voluntary disclosure case recently the justice department did a very quickly issue a declination letter to us, and in so doing told us that one of the reasons it was doing so is because it found that the investigation had been voluntarily conducted by the company of itself, was a thorough and complete and the disclosure was folsom and also there was no violation in my opinion that that is another

issue. so what the paper basically suggests are two things. one, rather than the issue as a declaration letter being permissive with prosecutors that they be required and that at such point when the prosecutor has made a decision not to prosecute the case that just as a symbol the matter of fundamental fairness that the subject of that investigation or the target of that investigation should be so told whether it is a company or individual. second, the paper suggests that the other departments enforce the objectives that is to create a level playing field for commercial competition and the shared objective of business to have such a level playing field and conduct their business affairs and in a manner that is consistent with their legal obligations and their own ethical commitments that both of

those objectives would be enhanced if the department was more forthcoming on a generic basis with the reasons it declines cases. most of the guidance that the companies get based on public statements by the justice department as to where and why discretion as exercise has to inwith bringing cases, not bringing cases. i would like to see as we said just now we see the other side of that coin and hear more from the justice department about why it doesn't bring cases. that said, i'm not suggesting that individual cases become the subject of press releases that say it was given a liquidation letter to get the declination letter should be their decision whether or not to disclose that sometimes with public companies they disclosed the fact of the

investigation so they want to, but on other occasions the investigation is never known to the public and need not be put in generic form, perhaps an annualized basis and organized report the paper suggests that the department could do a lot more to inform the public and the regulated community, the business community about why declination decisions are made and that would form some additional guidance that help companies with compliance programs and the general compliance. i will return the favor by directing the first question at you but i welcome rob and meals to comment as well. your suggestion about reform about the use of the tool and the exclusion i think that's

right. my experience in negotiating some kind of alternative disposition of their it is a deferred prosecution agreement and even a guilty plea and corporate probation attached to that oftentimes the threat of exclusion but other types of cases as well while not formally on the table, a big part of the bargaining power that the government brings to the table. and we don't often as your paper points out that much of an opportunity to actually litigate some aspects of the government's case and put adversary into the adversary system and contest its conclusions and part of the reason we can't do that is the threat of exclusion should we have that determination go the wrong way hangs over those

proceedings. but i would like to take that concept just a step further. i think all of us up here recognize and ensure that kneal and his office are the recipient of many voluntary disclosures by companies. most reputable companies today spend millions of dollars on compliance programs and have in-house personnel lawyers often former prosecutors who are dedicated to performing that function. when they find something wrong frankly, again i will speak from my own experience conclusion the companies can do far more in terms of gathering information about their own compliance issues in a shorter period of time the government could ever dream of doing. this is particularly true in international operations where the government can't just issue a grand jury subpoena.

so when a company performs this function and does volunteer disclosure and brings it to the attention of the government, that's the reality of how a major part of the enforcement program works today. is there room in the scheme of things to move more towards a system that recognizes and rewards that kind of voluntary disclosure, self policing, corporations after all can't think individuals to and while it may be appropriate to sanction a criminal enterprise with a criminal conviction to the self policing voluntary disclosure, the taking of remedial corrective measures in a timely way by resolving the corporations by presumption at least in policy from criminal prosecution. >> i think it's a very attractive idea, and i think

there are a number of ways in the provisions i sure that meal is familiar with and i do think play a significant role is a somewhat unclear role in which the idea of the voluntary disclosure is encouraged and we are talking of a context in which that is true but i think that in particular in areas with the consequences of the conviction are so enormous that did disincentives for voluntary disclosure are very real and the benefits of it all aside certain areas like antitrust, for example, where there are remarkable and clear benefits to the voluntary disclosure. outside that area i think a lot of companies have seen the experience in the justice department and it hasn't borne out the basic advice on a pure cost-benefit analysis it is the best thing to do and i think it

is the right thing to do. good companies dewitt but whether they actually benefit from it is less clear, so i do think a rule in various areas that to get a vintage of the antitrust model more and encouraged companies that became clear benefit than existed in the present would be very the beneficial. that's my view. i don't know what your thought is about that. >> we cover it in a wide variety of cases. we just talked about health care fraud and that is probably more in the house of hhs as opposed to the doj but this comes up frequently in the four men practice act or the defense procurement fraud as those are two areas that my district has

been active in and let me say a couple things, first the value of a strong term compliance program within a company can't be underestimated from my perspective for two reasons number one there are companies in this room but actually distinguish between compliance programs and the ethics programs within the corporate culture and complies in the lexicon of these industries i am referring to, kind of rules based structure from setting off tripwire years to detect activity that goes too far whereas a kind of ethics or business oriented program is the effort of a company to create corporate culture, something that goes down in the dna of the

business and from my perspective as an enforcer in a prosecutor, ibm down stream of corporate culture in a way that the ceo, the top corporate management of the company's upstream so the ability to create a culture in which activity whether criminal is viewed poorly it's for me trying to prosecute after the fact. that said, i think speaking from my office more generally and the enormous amount of credit is built into the system when a company comes to us and says we have a couple of bad apples in the barrel and we would like to

pull back the curtain and share information with you. we've seen in the ridings and in the media and comments from perhaps the defense or the industry council and we have seen blog postings by academics and using the context for example the companies that have come forward and have solved disclosed actually received meaningful concrete measurable benefits in the sense of in some instances declinations. morgan stanley is probably an example where in the context accompanied it voluntary self disclosure and issued a declination letter publicly but

other context would be penalties, and if you look through and see how the penalties are sort of sometimes discussed as can you believe the justice department is securing penalties in a particular case it's the sensing commission that sets the lost values and the statutory framework for the restitution and penalties and so forth and the itself disclosed across-the-board like they tend to do better sometimes significantly better than they might had they not done so. another area of benefit is whether the department is going to impose a corporate monitor as opposed to allowing them to solve report the progress of their compliance.

in the various areas in the per commit fraud that is something we have many years of working with large defense companies that are required to solve report to their agencies there is a system in place for the volunteer recent disclosure by companies in a number of these areas. >> how about a change in ball where he could actually have a jury instruction that you have a robust compliance program that could actually is on every company. within that change the exclusion doesn't apply?

i think your predecessor has endorsed that. >> i think it is to my mind and i credit the things that kneal has said. it's what it can be done and whether the discussion which would drive the way that works can be channeled in some way and what their rules can be in discussion and the argument for it is the company's partaking enormous risk in order to take that or at least taking the step that there's been dramatic adverse consequences and can you accompany the decision to do that with some degree of uncertainty about the way that the government will approach it and i think with all due respect it happened and is less reliable or at least it is perceived to be less reliable than might be. whether you make a defense rely devotee at all or channeled the discretion in some fashion, i am

open to those ideas because i think that making it clear that there are concrete benefits is important. the point that george meeks is critical. they are made up of two things. one if you publish the company you're punishing a bunch of people but didn't commit the crime. other employees to the company and live in the communities where those companies do business and so that all to factor and heavily with what you do the company showing something wrong. >> we only have below that of time left, but we do want to leave the opportunity for some of the answer questions -- audience questions. there is one regarding the post stevens analysis of the discovery obligations i wanted to ask you. a criminal investigation is a different animal than whatever the facts and circumstances were given the background of a civil

case and a civil discovery. some people have advocated in essence exporting civil discovery into criminal practice. does that make sense to you? >> if i spend time on the civil cases it is one of those things in the remarkable case where only money is at issue you get almost everything from the riverside. the free flow of information. when it's a criminal case you just give little drops and a little bit of it and its by ambush or it can be trial by ambush. wind life, liberty and existence of the company is at stake i am sensitive to the concerns ensure many people in the room share that civil discovery is a mess right now and it's too expensive and it costs companies too much money but it seems to be fundamentally fair and common sense that when you were charged with a crime and the government has favorable the information

there ought to be more less open discovery at sat in these cases when witness safety is an issue, financial security is an issue or where there's some sort of on the investigation but for the most part, i think we should probably have less civil cases and more criminal cases. that's my view and i live in both worlds. >> thank you. questions from the audience. i see one somewhere. yes. >> hold on just a second, please. >> earlier today the u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york's food bank of america for million dollars under the false claims act for allegedly selling fannie mae and freddie mac loans through the countrywide unit.

no individuals have been charged with a crime. how do you square that with some of the arguments you have been making about individuals committing crimes? >> anybody want to take that? i guess what i would say about it and not being familiar with the matter is that i do think that the issue of charging companies where individuals don't get charged is an interesting problem that the government faces. i do think the companies are much more susceptible to the meeting to resolve the cases short of a trial and i think you end up seeing settlement agreements from companies that never get tried or where no individuals are charged and

there are disincentives because they are more likely to get the charges and it's easier to trust companies. others say there aren't good reasons to trust companies and then you've always got particularly in civil cases you've always got up here person the you know is responsible for it but i do think that the government needs to think very carefully about the power that it holds of the corporate defendants which is a special power because the consequences of indictment or the consequences of these charges and the fact that they are less judicial supervision and protection in the context than maybe our system presupposes. but in any given case that doesn't mean it isn't a good or proper case to bring and the fact their needs to be consequences. i also suggest there isn't. they do understand that and take into account. >> i think there will be an interesting case to watch for a couple of reasons.

first of all, you know, it is a civil claim based on what you've described. but in addition to that, the government has been looking around for villans to charge of crime going out of the financial crisis for quite some time and for the most part hasn't brought major cases. there's been a lot of mortgage fraud cases so that the main street level but for the most part there have not been will street cases. i was at the justice department and a senior physician and the aftermath of the savings and loan crisis and now there were a lot of crooks that looted savings and loans and those individuals got charged. charging the savings and loan institutions and most of the cases that have literally been shooting a dead horse but in this case it is interesting to me that's brought under the false claims act is whether there may be whistle-blower

underneath those allegations in that case supplying the intent to defraud that is missing in some of the other cases that were not brought. but there are many senior management people who there is sufficient evidence to show actively engaged in fraud and that is hiding perhaps in the true nature of a portfolio of loans sold to freddie or fannie that may be very different type of case crude estimate the other thing to bear in mind in the civil case if it has been defrauded account of the funds and that is something that's an appropriate function of the statute to the extent of this

ends up getting driven into the consentual resolutions and never get tested. >> one more question. no well thank you very much. [applause] ..

>> our final panel focuses on tt are dominating conversation across the nation and the world. i have spoken to many people overseas and many are focused on the upcoming elections.

whoever wins the presidential election will have a major impact on legal regulatory we have been vital in two known political figures from the commonwealth of pennsylvania. rick santorum and former governor and neither of these men are known as a content being at a loss for words per in moderating our panel is a scott scott rasmussen from a nationally recognized political analyst.

he recently debuted a nationally syndicated television show, what america thinks print with akamai will turn it it over to you come is not. >> this is a great time, less than two weeks ago from election time. a lot of voters have cast their ballots. it has changed everything about the election process. where everybody is guessing who is going to win, and from what i see in the numbers, and the last two weeks, the media stories have been about how some mitt

romney had a great first debate and has turned the entire campaign around. barack obama was up 49% to 49%. after that debate come it was mitt romney who is up 49% to 47%. what that means is that 98% of voters did not change their mind. in colorado, our latest polling shows that barack obama is down by four points. he was up one point before the first debate. these numbers are moving in similar fashion across most of the states with one big exception, and that is ohio. in ohio, our numbers showed

48 to 48. there is great enthusiasm among republican voters all across the country. they are much more excited about participating in the selection and democrats. the democrats appear to have a stronger ground game and we are seeing that especially in ohio. before we get into all of that, we do have to guess. i was going to introduce them by saying that they have both said things that they have regretted. [laughter] but some have gotten him in trouble. senator rick santorum shocked the world earlier this year, especially in iowa and the early primaries. i want to start by asking about their home states. senator, most people felt that

it is an expensive state, like pennsylvania, republicans, which has been called fools gold for a long time, governor romney wasn't going to expend the resources. so what has happened in pennsylvania, to move it from a double-digit rates to a handful race, it really was national movement.

in the states where there is and that, you see more movement. and i think that pennsylvania is one of those states. the question here is who is going to invest the resources. pennsylvania is a state that does not have early voting. and so i would make the argument if i was a candidate, after people are going to be voting already. why invest in ohio when 95 the votes still to vote in pennsylvpennsylv ania and to move numbers there think you'll see the romney campaign, as you can imagine, i am not doing and talking strategizing. i do think that the dynamic of the state has changed. the area of growth was on the eastern part of the state. with oil and gas exploding in pennsylvania, we have seen growth in the central part of the state, and it has made it more likely to have one

republican senator and one democratic senator to control the state senate for 25 years. and control the state house of representatives for the idea that pennsylvania cannot vote republican is sort of silly. >> governor, is this something that he can win? >> well, it starts off with something that you said. i don't freely for any state. >> fair enough. [laughter] after hillary went through, i was on a show on cnn and the commentators commentator suggested i might be a good vice presidential choice for then senator obama from a key state. one of the heads of the forces that brought the party together, and he asked me what my chanters

were in a give usual answer. and they gave a good answer but can't the obama campaign where a black pen. that is when he was not wearing a flag pin, and i do. and the camera homed in on my flag pin. i got off at 233 at 2:31 p.m., there was a call on my cell phone from david axelrod. and he said i hope you understand that no one in chicago thought that was funny. but nonetheless, it was funny. in fact, i said in the book, i said that i told him, david, you guys better get a sense of humor or you will never make it to november. they made it to november just fine. i think most everything the rick said was almost right on.

i do not believe that scott said it is fine in his pool. the range everywhere from about three to about six. the reason i don't think it is in play is because you haven't seen the romney campaign or crossroads put a time on tv in philadelphia. the crossroads on the romney campaign, they track virtually in every state every day, they tried to do tracking polls. if you lose ohio but when pennsylvania, he win the election, probably. so why would they not seem to have adequate money. i started thinking about that and a marketer in way. maybe they are saying with two weeks ago, we probably don't

have enough time to influence voter choice by 5%. maybe if we just stayed quiet, maybe i'll voters will not be as reliable as republican voters regardless of the enthusiasm gap, especially in a year when there is the enthusiasm gap. republicans are still turning out well, and they sneak across the finish line into a startling upset. i believe that that is a possibility. even for an hour in philadelphia, they have two things. two things that we basically need is what they have. i don't think it is in play because, again, we haven't seen the romney campaign or crossroads involved. but on the other hand, you never

know remark was a rockabilly and approach. i don't think you can change perception. 5% is an awful lot. they said it could be a very clever plan. >> there is another race in pennsylvania, the senate race that senator casey should've had locked up quite a while ago here it is getting more and more competitive. we still show leaning in his direction, but tom smith, one of the aggressive campaigns,.

>> he played defense. it happens virtually every time come and that is what happened. instead of winning a double-digit victory, which might have made him secured, he will wind up being five or six points, and it will embolden the challenger the next time you will have. >> senator, i think that, you know, we have an oil and gas guy who is going to put more hours into the race. one thing that he has not done

his to find himself well in last six years. ed has made that comment. and i think that is true. sliding into this thing and making a tie, the tighter it is, in and the lower the turnout of the city, there there's really nobody from the city of philadelphia on the statewide ballot that is going to energize turnout in the city. this could be a real sleeper on election night. >> what would you think that the romney campaign needs to deal with two weeks out? we are in the middle of his early voting period. he may have a little bit of momentum, but clearly struggling in a couple swing states. how does he conclude the sale? >> well, i'm not too sure that there is much more there governor romney can do as a candidate. you know, obviously taking advantage of whatever the cycle

is, and at this point -- it's like the campaign. just try to win the day. just try to win the day and have a better day than your opponent. having obama trying to fend off attacks whatever momentum and is, when he backpedals, that is when the momentum starts. it is highly likely that they can do this. he is the incumbent president. there is a lot more to attack us and comment because he is in his own administration and things are happening there, use of e-mails today on benghazi.

that is a story where the president is explaining, and that may stick around for a couple of more days. that is not good for the obama campaign. on the offensive, be aggressive, driving home. ultimately, as ed said, it is all about turnout and energizing your base. the more they stay, you know, keep the president on the defensive and look like you are aggressive and energizing, you energize your base because look sector out there fighting and competing, the other thing is that these undecided voters, i think they swing at the end based on how they feel about it. coming down the stretch, it feels like mitt romney has the momentum and aggressive. those votes will go that way. i think it's very hard for the president to get a lot of these undecided voters coming down the stretch. they may not vote, but if romney can show that energy and keep again, keep it going, i think

there's could be a romney win and bigger than some people think. >> when we talk about those uncommitted voters, there are very few. our polling shows is maybe two or 3% as we pulled together a few weeks worth -- the president's job approval is inaccurate. only 14% say the economy will get better. you would normally would normally say that is not mr. president, but those people are not convinced those people would be any better. that seems to be the depression that is fueling the campaign. the way i look at it, governor, mitt romney is saying that we don't want four more years like we just had. president obama is saying that we don't want eight years likely have under george bush. everybody agrees with both of them. but they don't -- but where do you go from there? >> well, i think rick's analysis of what governor romney and his campaign has to do is absolutely right. i think that the president, his campaign has to work on the ground. i think one of the likely

scenarios, i'm not saying necessarily probable, but possible, as per mitt romney to win the popular vote and barack obama to win the electoral college. of course, we had that once were for 12 years ago, vice president gore got about a half million votes more than governor bush. 71,000 more votes than he would've won the electoral college. i think that is a distinct possibility here. >> because of ohio? >> because of ohio. i think it is a distinct possibility that president obama did something like 271 and loses the popular vote. and that goes obviously to the broader question of should we have an electoral college vote at all. is this really should be electing presidents. we can talk about that. but i think that is a

possibility. to the obama folks, it's two things. it is all ground game, number one, number two, the president has to do with rick said the government needs to do. not so much for the undecided people as scott said, but more so to get those base voters who are going to vote for governor romney under any circumstances. the only decision they are making is going to the polls. he has to give them a reason to go to the polls. and i think the last two advertisements that i have seen, morgan freeman added and the ad of the president speaking to himself, it's pretty good. giving someone a reason to just take a deep sigh and vote for him again. right now, the ads are all turnout adds. >> i want to talk about the frustration. two out of three voters tell us that they trust their own economic judgment more than they trust the president's economic judgment. two out of three tests on 10 trust their own judgment rather

than governor romney is trusted. most people don't think they things will get better no matter who wins. this cynicism will make it difficult for whoever wins on november 6. can they get anything done when they take office in january? >> well, sure. what it has to do with is exercising real leadership. i think the president obama loses the election, and i'm not sure that he will, i have to say he is a slight favorite in the electoral college. if he loses the election, he lost it because when simpson-bowles reported with the commission, he didn't do anything initially. he later came back. when he and john boehner were close in a big deal, that was basically along the lines of simpson-bowles. a $4,000,000,000,000.5 trying ordeal. but he did not grab simpson-bowles by that one. the reason he didn't is the political people said no way

you're going to be the first person to tell seniors that they are going to have to take a change in entitlements. well, interestingly, governor romney and paul ryan came around and so-called fell under the trap. isn't it true that he is carrying seniors and is a demographic? >> yes. >> will vote for governor or mayor or county commissioner, they told her leadership. what the president should have done is what i believe he will do if he is reelected. and what i hope that governor romney will do. and that is leading. that means bringing people together and saying, look, we have a framework here that can fix the debt. nothing is more important to this country than eliminating our deficit and fixing the debt. so many good things will flow from that for our economy and so many different aspects of the challenges that we face. do we have to do it. the president -- we have to giv. caucus leaders, people who took

some chances on simpson-bowles, and tom coburn said yes and chris wrote a letter and said no, you are violating the no tax pledge. you know, we have to get to these people, who is rick knows, is a very progressive senator who voted for simpson-bowles, even though it meant some difficult entitlement reforms that the progressive left-wing democratic party didn't like. we have to get them together and do something that will be along the lines of simpson-bowles. the women ate the deficit, fix the debt. invest in our infrastructure. invest in building a true american energy independence that is all in increasing tax credits or wind and solar, doing things for gas and solar and certainly natural gas. making it easier for nuclear

energy to get permitting. even if we don't build new nuclear reactors, the reactors will be old in 20 years and we are going to have to build additional new ones. we have a strategy and we need to take that and put something together for training and education and say to the congress on both sides, i'm going to take the way. we are going to do this, but i'm going to take the weight, and it is a tough decision that is unmeasured. that is what executive leadership is about. and the president is bound and determined to do that after the election. if i were him, i would talk about it. but he sort of hinted around it. i think governor romney, who is a problem solver and a dealmaker would be inclined to do the same thing. leadership people respond to leadership. for us is that you see in washington just needs a good idea and fixing the debt is a great idea. if we give both components, we can get both things done.

>> i will try a couple of data points. the generation gap is very significant. senior turnout is likely to be of this year. enthusiasm much higher than it was four years ago. they are going strongly in government romney's direction. it could have a significant out impact. they say that they won't accept cuts and that is just wrong. three years ago when president obama announced that he is going to send a 250-dollar check to seniors because they didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment on their social security, the majority of seniors were opposed to that. they weren't looking to get a special favor. what they are looking for an coming out of your leadership, is to make sure that they are not the only ones. they want to make sure that we are all in this together. senator, do you see this same issue going forward?

>> i do. i have served in the house house for four years in the senate for 12 years. and i think i can say pretty confidently that the vast majority of members of congress are not leaders. they are followers. >> absolutely. >> the most important thing for a president to do because as you have seen from this president in the previous president, that has limited potential. the other reason you get things done, unless of course you have a super majority in both where were known to have that -- you have to be able to cajole and the course and bring some side of a consensus to lie. and do that for the american public. that is why i am a little concerned for either candidate when they win. very concerned if president obama wins. because as ed said, he has not laid out any kind of real leadership message on how he is

going to solve these problems. he has done everything he can to try to hide the ball. nobody believes that that is going to solve the problem. and he really hasn't laid out anything that is a real leadership position. governor romney has. but a lot of it is 10 years down the road. he has done the greatest thing. a lot of it is sugarcoated to make sure that people are not really affected by it. the problem is we have to do something now. this situation, our fiscal situation, the economic situation is at a turning point. i think most economists will tell you that we cannot wait 10 years to deal with these problems. that makes it hard when you have an election like this. where it really hasn't been about big tough choices or big choices in some respects. to have the ability to lead leave after the election and

after you win. ed is right. he has come forward with all of these different plans and the public is going to say, wait a minute, i didn't hear any of this. you know, where is the fire? you said that there was not a fire. and that is the problem. the public is going to be very hard to do the kind of scale of change that is necessary in this town to go along after a campaign that didn't talk about anything close to the scale of change that we need. that is my concern with that. >> i just want to talk and rick has done a great job of saying where the fire is and where the solutions are -- the president has talked about -- he is talked about in the second debate during a reform of simpson-bowles, he had his job when he took to the congress in october of 2011, and he didn't get anywhere. including significant infrastructure spending.

what he hasn't done is put together in a package and say i will leave and make tough decisions. what scott said about seniors and the american people is exactly right. we don't trust -- we don't trust him a lot. what is brick is absolutely right when he says that, too. when you say to a group of seniors, social security was passed in the '30s. what was the life expectancy in the '30s? probably 63 or 64 years old. >> 61 years old. >> medicare was passed in the 60s. what was the life expectancy in the 60s? probably 65 years old. today, the life expectancy is 79.5. if you live to 65, it is 85 years old. these programs were never meant to last 20 years. of course we have to change something. we are going to change them in a balanced way and remove the cap people like me don't have a

social security tax starting at 110,000. but we are also going to have to change a little bit of the structure. i think that seniors may not be happy about that, but i think if someone talked to them in a reasonable and adult laid, they would accept that. >> i can tell you that i went out and i would go through the different social security benefits and who is receiving them, and groups of seniors, i walked through it. you can go to the videotape and do it. i would ask at the end of the conversation, how many people oppose what i'm doing? i would not get a single hand. there are lots of things we can do with these benefit programs that are just common sense, borrowing all this money and the american public and seniors would say, well, no one is being heard by the changes you are suggesting. the more that we have to do --

there is more that we do have to do. but there is some very low hanging fruit. one is the issue of eligibility. you try to tell and a 62-year-old in america that they are old, and they will punch you in the face. but no one who is 62 in america as they are old, but they are eligible for social security. that is a ridiculous situation. >> by the way, plurality of seniors today say that their ideal lifestyle is not to be in full retirement even full retirement age at 65. they would like to be working part-time in their dream scenario. just a historical note, the first social security recipients jaime fuller from vermont paid $22 into the system and she lived for more than 40 years after she retired, and received $21,000 in benefits. that is the kind of good return and nobody is going to see in today's world. >> we have been talking about social security, f